Well I commend you for actually being able to discuss the issue instead of attacking me like most would reduce themselves to. Small minds come up with small answers I guess. It is my belief than man has been peeing in the proverbial gene pool for a long time now. More specifically in the the last 100 years by coddling undesirable traits that shouldn't be. It's really cruel to think this way but nature is pretty cruel in general. Watch any nature show. When a hyena swoops in to take a young newborn baby zebra by the neck that aint so great to watch, but that is reality. I believe there is a cause and effect for everything. I can't see how homosexuality is healthy, especially in males. How is fecal matter + reproductive system a good thing. It's an abomination. It's disgusting. Certainly something is very wrong there. It wouldn't take much to know that playing around with fecal waste is about as backwards to the human process as you can get. The male life bearing "device" is literally inserted into human waste. 180 deg out of balance. I believe bisexuality was the invention of homosexuality. The one twisted thought in someone that allowed that mindset to pass on genetic code. The gene pool is degrading, I can't see how furthering this idea, and embracing it, is anywhere close to being a good idea. However they're here and they're queer. So am I homophobic? no. I've actually gone to a few after hours gay bars and talked to lots of gay men. They would love to take me home. Every gay man I've met has told me this essentially. So no I don't hate gays. The sex part makes me want to dry heave endlessly though.
it's not a stretch to go the other way. this may shock you, but women urinate out of their vaginas and that stuff coming out of your peepee is also waste matter. yet you have no qualms putting those two together. i assume that you are equally opposed to tagging your wife or girlfriend "in a very uncomfortable place" (thank you kevin smith!)?
also, i must congratulate you on being irresistable to gay men. ive known many gay men. ive never once had them tell me they couldnt wait to take me home. i respected their lifestyle and made no effort to change it and they did the same.
i also dont get the eliminating bad genes thing. i take it you're referring to things like diabetes and mental retardation? we should let these people fend for themselves and if they can't cut it tough shit? sterilize the mentally ill? it sounds like you're talking about eugenics and that's a pretty frightening slippery slope.
it's not a stretch to go the other way. this may shock you, but women urinate out of their vaginas and that stuff coming out of your peepee is also waste matter. yet you have no qualms putting those two together. i assume that you are equally opposed to tagging your wife or girlfriend "in a very uncomfortable place" (thank you kevin smith!)?
also, i must congratulate you on being irresistable to gay men. ive known many gay men. ive never once had them tell me they couldnt wait to take me home. i respected their lifestyle and made no effort to change it and they did the same.
i also dont get the eliminating bad genes thing. i take it you're referring to things like diabetes and mental retardation? we should let these people fend for themselves and if they can't cut it tough shit? sterilize the mentally ill? it sounds like you're talking about eugenics and that's a pretty frightening slippery slope.
Urine is sterile...you can drink it to survive...eat your feces...well we've head all about e-coli ilnesses and deaths.
I'm stating scientific fact devoid of emotion, and reflecting this to observable phonema in nature. Sterilize people..no no... hit it at the source before conception. We can't succeed after the fact because we have emotions...who could watch a baby suffer and die? Animals do it all the time. It does not mean my argument is not correct with regards to altering our genetic path and the reasons thereof.
If people can't see this argument for what it is then oh well. That's fine but to say im wrong would be very misinformed.
My point is to prove a concept that very few actually realize, yet many criticize. But it still does not come close to proving me wrong. I have yet to see evidence of it in this thread...
In reality today? slipery slope sure...who's going to start euthanizing children? dear lord!? not I... I'm actually against abortion even.
I hope you can see what I mean in my viewpoint. Identifying a problem leads further towards it's solution. It's funny to see people lash out though, as I have stated that I support gay adoption, and acceptance of gays, and I have several gay friends...all in this same thread...and all of which is true.
Urine is sterile...you can drink it to survive...eat your feces...well we've head all about e-coli ilnesses and deaths.
I'm stating scientific fact devoid of emotion, and reflecting this to observable phonema in nature. Sterilize people..no no... hit it at the source before conception.. alas we can't because we have emotions...who could watch a baby suffer and die? Animals do it all the time. It does not mean my argument is not correct with regards to altering our genetic path and the reasons thereof.
If people can't see this argument for what it is then oh well. That's fine but to say im wrong would be very misinformed.
My point is to prove a concept that very few actually realize, yet many criticize. But it still does not come close to proving me wrong. I have yet to see evidence of it in this thread...
In reality today? slipery slope sure...who's going to start euthanizing children? dear lord!? not I... I'm actually against abortion even.
I hope you can see what I mean in my viewpoint. Identifying a problem leads further towards it's solution. It's funny to see people lash out though, as I have stated that I support gay adoption, and acceptance of gays, and I have several gay friends...all in this same thread...and all of which is true.
righton....dude....thanks for clarifying your approach....i really admire you for trailblazing, no attack on your oh so intelligent approach.....i just sent you a one-line rant PM.
but you're like a self-professed victim here, and by the way, haven't you heard of other animals taking care of/or adopting other baby animals.
Urine is sterile...you can drink it to survive...eat your feces...well we've head all about e-coli ilnesses and deaths.
I'm stating scientific fact devoid of emotion, and reflecting this to observable phonema in nature. Sterilize people..no no... hit it at the source before conception. We can't succeed after the fact because we have emotions...who could watch a baby suffer and die? Animals do it all the time. It does not mean my argument is not correct with regards to altering our genetic path and the reasons thereof.
If people can't see this argument for what it is then oh well. That's fine but to say im wrong would be very misinformed.
My point is to prove a concept that very few actually realize, yet many criticize. But it still does not come close to proving me wrong. I have yet to see evidence of it in this thread...
In reality today? slipery slope sure...who's going to start euthanizing children? dear lord!? not I... I'm actually against abortion even.
I hope you can see what I mean in my viewpoint. Identifying a problem leads further towards it's solution. It's funny to see people lash out though, as I have stated that I support gay adoption, and acceptance of gays, and I have several gay friends...all in this same thread...and all of which is true.
i see your argument, i just dont think it's as ironclad as you do. as decides2dream pointed out, could homosexuality not just be part of nature's plan? furthermore, as i mentioned before but i think it got missed... gay people do not have only gay children and straight people do not have only straight children. thus, there's no one "gay gene" to be passing out that is gonig to either die out or wipe us out. it's a random occurrence like many other things, from eye color to albinoism to dwarfism. i see what you're saying about species procreation, but i dont think homosexuality is going to make any sort of dent on it. i think our gene pool is in far more danger from the chemicals and radiation and hormones we add to our food on a daily basis than it is from homosexuals.
though im curious what you mean by "at the source before conception." i can relate it to not allowing gays to use fertility treatments and whatnot. but to me, that still entails banning the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, midgets, etc from reproducing. maybe you're not advocating sterilization, but you're still talking about denying all these people reproductive rights on genetic grounds. i dont think there's anything WE can do with fertility treatments to beat mother nature.
and for the record, if that means you're not down with giving it to your gf "in through the out door" then you're missing out
Right, the gay is back for more (see page 14). Just couldn't resist.
Me and my g/f are NOT going to adopt, we are going to have children that are hers and a donor's. Rightondude thinks that in doing this we are not following the path of nature. As far as the donor's surplus of sperm and my g/f's eggs are concerned, there's nothing out of the ordinary there. It's nature for men to ejaculate and for women to get pregnant. And no, the donor is not going to deliver his goods Adam&Eve's way, so yeah go ahead and argue this is most unnatural. Do you drink your milk straight from the cow by the way?
On our undesiarable trait. We cannot reproduce, this is true. But as other people have already said: our kids will not be gay just because we are. They might have asthma though, as my lovely g/f has it. Next time she has an attack and can't reach her inhaler, should I let nature follow its chosen path and let her die?
As to separating emotion from science.... You are against abortion. So if a girl gets raped and gets pregnant against her will, you would like to follow the chosen part of nature again? Or do you think that might be a bit unfair?
Urine is sterile...you can drink it to survive...eat your feces...well we've head all about e-coli ilnesses and deaths.
I'm stating scientific fact devoid of emotion, and reflecting this to observable phonema in nature. Sterilize people..no no... hit it at the source before conception. We can't succeed after the fact because we have emotions...who could watch a baby suffer and die? Animals do it all the time. It does not mean my argument is not correct with regards to altering our genetic path and the reasons thereof.
If people can't see this argument for what it is then oh well. That's fine but to say im wrong would be very misinformed.
My point is to prove a concept that very few actually realize, yet many criticize. But it still does not come close to proving me wrong. I have yet to see evidence of it in this thread...
In reality today? slipery slope sure...who's going to start euthanizing children? dear lord!? not I... I'm actually against abortion even.
I hope you can see what I mean in my viewpoint. Identifying a problem leads further towards it's solution. It's funny to see people lash out though, as I have stated that I support gay adoption, and acceptance of gays, and I have several gay friends...all in this same thread...and all of which is true.
Like a cloud dropping rain
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
i see your argument, i just dont think it's as ironclad as you do. as decides2dream pointed out, could homosexuality not just be part of nature's plan? furthermore, as i mentioned before but i think it got missed... gay people do not have only gay children and straight people do not have only straight children. thus, there's no one "gay gene" to be passing out that is gonig to either die out or wipe us out. it's a random occurrence like many other things, from eye color to albinoism to dwarfism. i see what you're saying about species procreation, but i dont think homosexuality is going to make any sort of dent on it. i think our gene pool is in far more danger from the chemicals and radiation and hormones we add to our food on a daily basis than it is from homosexuals.
though im curious what you mean by "at the source before conception." i can relate it to not allowing gays to use fertility treatments and whatnot. but to me, that still entails banning the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, midgets, etc from reproducing. maybe you're not advocating sterilization, but you're still talking about denying all these people reproductive rights on genetic grounds. i dont think there's anything WE can do with fertility treatments to beat mother nature.
and for the record, if that means you're not down with giving it to your gf "in through the out door" then you're missing out
I see homosexuality as a probable progression of bisexuality, and mens ever present untamed libido in leading them into deviation of a bisexual nature as introducing the "mindset" (for lack of specific genetic proof at this point in time) into the mix. Once the human mind has been completely unravelled I think we will know much more, or all that is reality. Will homosexuality wipe us out....very unlikely. At present nature has brought the equation, and probably always will back into balance, perhaps a new balance. Homosexuality goes extremely far back before any written word, or any expression of verbal communication for that matter imo. To willingly expand the notion of introducing further genetic integration of homosexual deviation on a wider scale could very well be asking for unknown consequences. What that will be? Who knows. But not to not recognize this would be unwise though.
Hitting it at the source is a very good question, of which I wish I had a viable answer for. A catch 22 with the human condition, simply by the fact that our emotions, and abilities are highly developed when compared to the animal realm. I still stand by my comprehension of the situation though, but I cannot provide answers to this highly emotional scenario. I wish I had all the answers. What can we do at this point? Good question, other than to identify it and recognise it. Hopefully science can provide further clarification with additional research on the human genome. Perhaps science can "map us out" before preparing to concieve, and provide us an answer to eliminate ilnesses, diseases, disabilities, and other bodily suseptibilities, etc......many issues there as well, even towards my own argument, on what is natural anymore. In any event, this is where we all are. We cannot remove ourselves *from* ourselves and how we react with regards to compassion. All we can do is just try to understand the concept and hope for the best for all in the future.
To willingly expand the notion of introducing further genetic integration of homosexual deviation on a wider scale could very well be asking for unknown consequences. What that will be? Who knows. But not to not recognize this would be unwise though.
Let me just repeat that one more time: "genetic integration of homosexual deviation". Wow.
Seriously though, we are now entering the realm of speculation. And need it be said again: there is no gay gene.
Hopefully science can provide further clarification with additional research on the human genome. Perhaps science can "map us out" before preparing to concieve, and provide us an answer to eliminate ilnesses, diseases, disabilities, and other bodily suseptibilities, etc......many issues there as well, even towards my own argument, on what is natural anymore.
Are you the same person who said we have to follow nature's chosen path? The very same who is against abortion? Mapping people out "before preparing to conceive" to "Provide us an answer to eliminate illnesses, diseases, disabilities". Sounds scary to me.
Like a cloud dropping rain
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
Let me just repeat that one more time: "genetic integration of homosexual deviation". Wow.
Seriously though, we are now entering the realm of speculation. And need it be said again: there is no gay gene.
Are you the same person who said we have to follow nature's chosen path? The very same who is against abortion? Mapping people out "before preparing to conceive" to "Provide us an answer to eliminate illnesses, diseases, disabilities". Sounds scary to me.
that pharse makes better sense as "Deviation by Genetic Integration of Homosexulity" or "Genetic Integration of Homosexuality is a Deviation from....."
there is a genetic basis to everything.....everything in science is showing to come down to this level.
Right, the gay is back for more (see page 14). Just couldn't resist.
Me and my g/f are NOT going to adopt, we are going to have children that are hers and a donor's. Rightondude thinks that in doing this we are not following the path of nature. As far as the donor's surplus of sperm and my g/f's eggs are concerned, there's nothing out of the ordinary there. It's nature for men to ejaculate and for women to get pregnant. And no, the donor is not going to deliver his goods Adam&Eve's way, so yeah go ahead and argue this is most unnatural. Do you drink your milk straight from the cow by the way?
On our undesiarable trait. We cannot reproduce, this is true. But as other people have already said: our kids will not be gay just because we are. They might have asthma though, as my lovely g/f has it. Next time she has an attack and can't reach her inhaler, should I let nature follow its chosen path and let her die?
As to separating emotion from science.... You are against abortion. So if a girl gets raped and gets pregnant against her will, you would like to follow the chosen part of nature again? Or do you think that might be a bit unfair?
Peace out
Very good post!
And rightondude. may I ask you what your qualifications are? Are you in the field of genetic research? What do you know about genetics, anyway? I'm very interested in this, I might have missed it but I haven't seen your credentials on the subject, neither have I seen any source that backs up your statement. I'm not saying your statement is wrong... but I'd really like to know.
Right, the gay is back for more (see page 14). Just couldn't resist.
Me and my g/f are NOT going to adopt, we are going to have children that are hers and a donor's. Rightondude thinks that in doing this we are not following the path of nature. As far as the donor's surplus of sperm and my g/f's eggs are concerned, there's nothing out of the ordinary there. It's nature for men to ejaculate and for women to get pregnant. And no, the donor is not going to deliver his goods Adam&Eve's way, so yeah go ahead and argue this is most unnatural. Do you drink your milk straight from the cow by the way?
On our undesiarable trait. We cannot reproduce, this is true. But as other people have already said: our kids will not be gay just because we are. They might have asthma though, as my lovely g/f has it. Next time she has an attack and can't reach her inhaler, should I let nature follow its chosen path and let her die?
As to separating emotion from science.... You are against abortion. So if a girl gets raped and gets pregnant against her will, you would like to follow the chosen part of nature again? Or do you think that might be a bit unfair?
Peace out
Science has created, or allowed for, many of the genetic problems I'm talking about. I would believe stark evidence of mans intervention in nature. Not drinking milk from the cow or even owning a cow but still drinking milk is a cake and eat it to scenario.
5000+ years ago if I didn't own a tamed cow, I probably couldn't drink it's milk. You might also have a hard time getting a guy to let go into a cup. Most primitive men might not be so nice, or willing in the process to even consider this, and would have their way with you as often as they desire. Men are untamed animals in this regard, to imagine no laws or consequence to man's actions could be a very scary reality for many a gay woman. You would probably have to live in isolation and come out of hiding just to "breed" or risk being "raped" in this case repeatedly in a primitive society or village. Being outcast in a village usually meant death around 4000+ years ago. Would the baby, or you, survive the hardships of being pregnant in an untamed world without mans protection and support i.e. food shelter safety from animals? Much has changed in society the past 5,000 years alone. Homosexuality has really only been able to really proliferate socially in the just past 30-50 years. It's been a big secret until now. So I could argue that it is increasing substantially.
I believe the first bisexual thinking person was a man that carried forward this tendency and gave offspring to like minded women over time. Men are hornballs. Continual carrying forward of this trait would lead it to develop into full polarity leading to homosexuality. That's total opinion though.
Back in history your partner would not have access to an inhaler so you might not have a choice on her outcome.
Anyhow what does this matter now...very little.
I am not against abortion in extreme circumstances I should have clarified this I am not a black and white thinking person. Gang rape would be an obvious consideration... just not as birth control measure.
Anyhow back to your current situation. I can't press my beliefs on you and say you're going to hell shame on you. That mentality would select me out in an evolutionary sense in today's society. We are definitely evolving and changing over time it seems very apparent to me. Thinking is good. Not thinking is bad. I love breaking steroetypes and beliefs, I always have to figure out how something works for some reason, what I do in the process is usually unconventional.
besides all that...I wish you all the best. Hapiness is the ultimate answer to everything I believe. Find it in whatever form you can that provides it. that to me is the ultimate human condition and answer thus far.
What makes a gay man gay? Gays are an evolutionary dead end. They cannot reproduce. Period. Nature would select them out. If you don't inderstand that I can't debate it with you as you're missing some key knowledge.
When a gay man mates with a hetero woman he in introducing this flaw into the gene pool...that's obvious. I'm not making this stuff up. That is nature that is evolution. Unless you wnat to start debating the laws of nature and evolution.
People who oppose this are using emotion over logic. Evolution is cruel but it has brought us thus far. Study the Thomsons gazelle. Ever wonder why the all look the same? Why most animals all look exactly the same? Because nature has made them perfect. Now look at all the screwed up genetic flaws size shapes, and mental diseases in people. Coincidence? Nope... human emotion has introduced much of these mutations by keeping alive things that would die in nature and they reproduce into the gene pool. Don't take my word for it learn something...read about it... ps the human condition is a useless argument in this case.
I've gone through this entire thread, and this post really got me. You call homosexuality an evolutionary dead-end because they can't reproduce. You're obviously tying "success" with genetic replication through reproduction. Fair enough - that is one of the measures scientists use. But then things get....funny. You bring up the Thompson's gazelle as an example of a 'perfect' organism due to it's apparent lack of visible differences between individuals. For one, if genetic replication through reproduction is the primary factor in determining success, then I'd say that the 'imperfect' human has the Thompson's gazelle (and every other large mammal on the planet) beat by a wide margin. For two, the so-called 'perfect' scenerio you bring up, whether with gazelles or applied to any species is, by and large, detrimental to the life expectancy of a species. You're essentially arguing for a lack of variation - and just about any species that shows a lack of variation is a doomed species. And this has happened in nature. Species get so refined to their envirnments, so "perfect" as you call them, that any change, even a minute one, could wipe out the entire population. Where's their evolutionary viablity then?
If humans have been degenerating their genetic code over the past 100 years, thereby limiting their 'success' as a species, why is it that over the past 100 years, humans have only become more successful? That's just the brain and emotion, not nature? Anything else in nature can be considered a natural trait, but the human mind is something different? No. We have used our minds - even the "evolutionarily limiting" emotional aspects of them - to make ourselves one of the most successful species on the planet in the same way a cat uses its claws to gut a mouse for it's own survival.
As for homosexuality being a "dead-end." - well maybe, and this is just a maybe, it is for the gay individual; but for the species as a whole, it doesn't seem to have had much of an effect.
Oh, and the human condition is relevent in this case. The 'human condition' is part of our environment, and environment has quite a bit to do with evolution.
there is a genetic basis to everything.....everything in science is showing to come down to this level.
Agreed, but:
"The 50% concordance rate for identical twins indicates that there is a genetic influence on sexual orientation but that there are other influences as well (if sexual orientation were solely genetically influenced, the concordance rate for identical twins would be 100%). Behavior is complex, influenced by many genes. Furthermore, different people might become homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual for different reasons; for some, a neuroendocrine explanation might be best; for others, an environmental explanation might be best.
Some people hope that proof that sexual orientation is genetically influenced might reduce discrimination against lesbigay persons. There is some basis for this hope: A poll showed that Americans who think that homosexuality is a choice have more negative attitudes than those who think it cannot be changed. However, proof that sexual orientation is genetic will not necessarily prevent discrimination, just as the fact that race is genetic has not prevented racial discrimination. Acceptance of people of all sexual orientations is important regardless of the cause of sexual orientation."
Source: http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/february97/muehlen.htm
Like a cloud dropping rain
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
I believe the first bisexual thinking person was a man that carried forward this tendency and gave offspring to like minded women over time. Men are hornballs. Continual carrying forward of this trait would lead it to develop into full polarity leading to homosexuality. That's total opinion though.
i think this is the crux of things here. your points are valid, but they are no more than hypoethsis and theories at present. you talk about the progression of homosexuality, but you have no facts of evidence to point to when discussing that progression. we dont know if it's increasing or not. it used to be hidden, so it's entirely possible its seeming "increase" now is simply a matter of people being more willing to be open about it. from the flipside, you could say open homosexuality is a healthy thing, becos before you had men or women who were gay getting married and having kids anyway... thus passing it on in accordance with your theory. allowing them marriage and encouraging open acceptance of it might be a way to minimize its spread if that concerns you. part of that is not treating them differently. im really not sure how many gay and lesbian couples are opting for surrogates to get children but im reasonably certain it's not exactly a huge amount.
anyway, ive phrased it before in an ill-advised personal manner so id like to ask it more rhetorically. you claim to be so disgusted by "gay sex." but you only speak of homosexual male relations as justification. women dont do that, in fact im willing to bet you do the same thing to you wife or girlfriend that lesbian partners do to each other. furthermore, do you have equal disgust for a married male-female couple who engage in anal sex that you do for gay couples? im not trying to be snarky or humorous, im honestly curious about the basis for your disgust with homosexual relations.
Men are untamed animals in this regard, to imagine no laws or consequence to man's actions could be a very scary reality for many a gay woman. You would probably have to live in isolation and come out of hiding just to "breed" or risk being "raped" in this case repeatedly in a primitive society or village. Being outcast in a village usually meant death around 4000+ years ago. Would the baby, or you, survive the hardships of being pregnant in an untamed world without mans protection and support i.e. food shelter safety from animals? Much has changed in society the past 5,000 years alone. Homosexuality has really only been able to really proliferate socially in the just past 30-50 years. It's been a big secret until now. So I could argue that it is increasing substantially.
I believe there were plenty of gay people around at that point in time as well, they just didn't practice and if they did, yes, they were probably killed. The fact that homosexuality has been accepted a bit more recently does mean more people are coming out, but that doesn't prove people in primitive village didn't fancy people of the same sex.
I believe the first bisexual thinking person was a man that carried forward this tendency and gave offspring to like minded women over time. Men are hornballs. Continual carrying forward of this trait would lead it to develop into full polarity leading to homosexuality. That's total opinion though.
Tendency. Hm. Like I've said, in my opinion, homosexuality has been around since the beginning of evolution. I would almost go as far as to say that it is normal for ALL people to fancy people of the same sex at least one time in their lives, whether they like it or not. But that's my opinion
Anyhow back to your current situation. I can't press my beliefs on you and say you're going to hell shame on you. That mentality would select me out in an evolutionary sense in today's society. We are definitely evolving and changing over time it seems very apparent to me. Thinking is good. Not thinking is bad. I love breaking steroetypes and beliefs, I always have to figure out how something works for some reason, what I do in the process is usually unconventional.
besides all that...I wish you all the best. Hapiness is the ultimate answer to everything I believe. Find it in whatever form you can that provides it. that to me is the ultimate human condition and answer thus far.
I wish you all the best too, it's been interesting to read your opinions and theories
Like a cloud dropping rain
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
I've gone through this entire thread, and this post really got me. You call homosexuality an evolutionary dead-end because they can't reproduce. You're obviously tying "success" with genetic replication through reproduction. Fair enough - that is one of the measures scientists use. But then things get....funny. You bring up the Thompson's gazelle as an example of a 'perfect' organism due to it's apparent lack of visible differences between individuals. For one, if genetic replication through reproduction is the primary factor in determining success, then I'd say that the 'imperfect' human has the Thompson's gazelle (and every other large mammal on the planet) beat by a wide margin. For two, the so-called 'perfect' scenerio you bring up, whether with gazelles or applied to any species is, by and large, detrimental to the life expectancy of a species. You're essentially arguing for a lack of variation - and just about any species that shows a lack of variation is a doomed species. And this has happened in nature. Species get so refined to their envirnments, so "perfect" as you call them, that any change, even a minute one, could wipe out the entire population. Where's their evolutionary viablity then?
If humans have been degenerating their genetic code over the past 100 years, thereby limiting their 'success' as a species, why is it that over the past 100 years, humans have only become more successful? That's just the brain and emotion, not nature? Anything else in nature can be considered a natural trait, but the human mind is something different? No. We have used our minds - even the "evolutionarily limiting" emotional aspects of them - to make ourselves one of the most successful species on the planet in the same way a cat uses its claws to gut a mouse for it's own survival.
As for homosexuality being a "dead-end." - well maybe, and this is just a maybe, it is for the gay individual; but for the species as a whole, it doesn't seem to have had much of an effect.
Oh, and the human condition is relevent in this case. The 'human condition' is part of our environment, and environment has quite a bit to do with evolution.
I think we lapsed our responses to each other in writing them. I may have addressed most of what you are asking in my last post.
However you sound like you have a good grasp of the situation. We would come down to mere opinions in hashing finer details. Science hasn't etched it on the epitaph as of yet. I look at the "tells" and use it as a basis for my conclusions. It's like making up a great plate of food at a buffet...bit of this bit of that...see if it tastes good...go back try again...That's ok with me, Life is boring when it's all the same. Really its not an I'm right or you're wrong scenario anymore. An open mind catches the most knowledge. You would appear to be well on your way in this regard
Being gay is a disease where the brain mutates during fetus fevelopment.
Then you went on to admit this when hippiemom challenged you:
Actually it hasn't been proven that I am aware of. I was just appealing to both sides of the argument supporting homosexuality.
Furthermore, you made these points:
Sure we can go on supporting it forever, but we are changing the laws of nature. We are breeding an undesirable trait (according to evolution) into society. Tossing mother nature aside always has grave consequences
Gays are an evolutionary dead end. They cannot reproduce.
So you would call introducing unnatural, manmade, undesirable, regressive traits back into the gene pool a natural thing?
Yes, it's related to populus numbers as a means of control. It is a mutation... It is also evolutionary dead end for a specific reason
Have you read any of my earlier posts? An entirely gay society would lead to extinction of the species. Would you consider this a desirable trait? Survival of the fittest? how does that apply to no survival at all? Homosexuality exists because emotional loopholes, and bending the rules, have allowed it to. Perhaps you are confusing homosexuality with Bisexuality?
You talk about breeding an “undesirable” trait (according to evolution in your words) into society. I call that out as being your opinion regarding the undesirability of this trait. Numerous people have pointed out that this trait has existed in humanity through time, and therefore nature is proving that it has a purpose, whether we are acknowledging it or not.
To me, all of your “facts” sound rather like your personal interpretation of the facts.
For example, as it was pointed out, if a "gay gene" has not been identified, then the concept of "mutation" in this regard is misleading.
Evolution allows that we discover advances exactly when we do--ones that increase life expectancy, quality of life, and the ability to create, design and innovate in all areas. It sounds like you have a personal bias against homosexual practises that you are so adamant to see it as an undesirable trait, even when there are other plausible explanations.
I've noticed a lot of emotion from you in this thread--hostile comments levelled at posters when you seemed frustrated. Or talking down to others, and using power plays such as "end of discussion". Many times that I noticed this, such posters were making valid, reasoned arguments. It's pretty obvious to me that there is certainly an emotional element to this for you.
In the final analysis for me, nature is what it is, including the effects of the entirely relevent human condition. This regardless of our personal interpretations and opinions of what nature is about.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
When I was away at school I lived with a woman and her child. The woman was a lesbian and her child wasn't biologically her's (it was the other woman's, but they had split custody). The child was 9-10 and was perfectly normal (besides the normal troubles of having your parents separated). None of my friends thought she was weird (and they didn't know that she had two moms). I was told that her friends actually thought it was really cool that she had two moms, so really I don't think it makes a difference whether your parents are straight or gay.
"I got this shirt for 35 cents"-Eddie Vedder
Toronto 2000
London 2005
Hamilton 2005
Toronto 2006
Rightondude: at one point in this thread, you said:
Then you went on to admit this when hippiemom challenged you:
Furthermore, you made these points:
You talk about breeding an “undesirable” trait (according to evolution in your words) into society. I call that out as being your opinion regarding the undesirability of this trait. Numerous people have pointed out that this trait has existed in humanity through time, and therefore nature is proving that it has a purpose, whether we are acknowledging it or not.
To me, all of your “facts” sound rather like your personal interpretation of the facts.
For example, as it was pointed out, if a "gay gene" has not been identified, then the concept of "mutation" in this regard is misleading.
Evolution allows that we discover advances exactly when we do--ones that increase life expectancy, quality of life, and the ability to create, design and innovate in all areas. It sounds like you have a personal bias against homosexual practises that you are so adamant to see it as an undesirable trait, even when there are other plausible explanations.
I've noticed a lot of emotion from you in this thread--hostile comments levelled at posters when you seemed frustrated. Or talking down to others, and using power plays such as "end of discussion". Many times that I noticed this, such posters were making valid, reasoned arguments. It's pretty obvious to me that there is certainly an emotional element to this for you.
In the final analysis for me, nature is what it is, including the effects of the entirely relevent human condition. This regardless of our personal interpretations and opinions of what nature is about.
I reserve the right to express hostility when people call me out as a sad fuck clueless retard, jackass etc... whatever. I'm not going back to look and nitpick it. I'm not flawless in controlling my emotions, who is? I do however call people out when they don't see simple concepts such as the process of natural selection and passing on physical traits and then continue to call me clueless. Maybe my thought process is perhaps advanced for some people, and I take too much for granted that people know something of what I know to form an viable concept. Why the heck would I be here discussing this in the first place if I knew, and have proven, all these things as fact? I'd be too busy signing papers for all my nobel awards, and speaking at lectures for $20,000/hr
Science hasn't even proven evolution yet...so it's a still a theory. God is still a theory. However the obvious like being, or not being, able to pass on physical traits is pretty cut and dry. You either create or you don't create (gay/straight). I think science has told us that quite effectively. Whether it's has a neat little packaged label on it like "genetic" really doesn't change some key concepts and observations throughout time pertaining to evolution. I did site a link that would lend to genetic disposition through pheremone recognition. I also said it was somehwat interesting. I also didn't parade it as fact.
I believe I am doing the gay community a service by stating their actions out of their control..i.e development at birth. When else could it possibly occur? before conception? I also said God is not an argument it is a purely circular conversation in opinion. This would seem to validate the gay community somewhat no?
To assume I, or anyone, can account for the actions and lives of everyone that has ever lived up until this point and how they've interacted throughout history is unrealistic. I cannot recreate the history of mankind since the dawn of time for people here, yet it would seem that I need to, in order to convey some simple concepts, while taking various personal attacks along the way. I think I've excersized an appropriate level on control in my responses considering my reality of it, and considering the timeline in the progression of the conversation.
Everything is a theory in this area of discussion. I assume people also know that. Perhaps I assume too much of people. I can't fathom knowing less than what I know in actuality. Until the human mind and universe is completely unravelled *everything* is really just a theory... That would explain why laws are being continually revised as we go forward...something that we once considered 100% certainty has now become uncertain and so on...
I really can't add more than that to this thread. People will continue on as they always will. Hopefully with one or two more sparks going on up top.
I don't have to be here...I do it for myself mostly. nothing is forever so they say...
I reserve the right to express hostility when people call me out as a sad fuck clueless retard, jackass etc... whatever. I'm not going back to look and nitpick it. I'm not flawless in controlling my emotions, who is? I do however call people out when they don't see simple concepts such as the process of natural selection and passing on physical traits and then continue to call me clueless. Maybe my thought process is perhaps advanced for some people, and I take too much for granted that people know something of what I know to form an viable concept. Why the heck would I be here discussing this in the first place if I knew all, and have proven, these things as fact? I be too busy signing papers for all my nobel awards, and speaking at lectures for $20,000/hr
Science hasn't even proven evolution yet...so it's a still a theory. God is still a theory. However the obvious like being, or not being, able to pass on physical traits is pretty cut and dry. You either create or you don't create (gay/straight). I think science has told us that quite effectively. Whether it's has a neat little packaged label on it like "genetic" really doesn't change some key concepts and observations throughout time pertaining to evolution. I did site a link that would lend to genetic disposition through pheremone recognition. I also said it was somehwat interesting. I also didn't parade it as fact.
I believe I am doing the gay community a service by stating their actions out of their control..i.e development at birth. When else could it possibly occur? before birth or conception? I also said God is not an argument it is a purely circular conversation in opinion. This would seem to validate the gay community somewhat no?
To assume I, or anyone, can account for the actions and lives of everyone that has ever lived up until this point and how they've interacted throughout history is unrealistic. I cannot recreate the history of mankind since the dawn of time for people here, yet it would seem that I need to, in order to convey some simple concepts, while taking personal various personal attacks along the way. I think I've excersized an appropriate level on control in my responses considering my reality of it, and considering the timeline in the progression of the conversation.
Everything is a theory in this area of discussion. I assume people also know that. Perhaps I assume too much of people. I can't fathom knowing less than what I know in actuality. Until the human mind and universe is completely unravelled *everything* is really just a theory... That would explain why laws are being continually revised as we go forward...something that we once considered 100% certainty has now become uncertain and so on...
I really can't add more than that to this thread. People will continue on as they always will. Hopefully with one or two more sparks going on up top.
I don't have to be here...I do it for myself mostly. nothing is forever so they say...
/end of rant
Of course, you're totally entitled to your view, and I mean that with sincerity.
I understand that others frustrate you and cause you an emotional response. What I don't understand is when it appears you don't understand when it happens to others.
I was feeling uncomfortable in this thread because no matter who started a negative tone and when, a lot of completely valid views were put down, many by you. It sets up an ugliness pertaining to the subject matter. I was hesitant to come in here and say my point for "fear" of being called somehow inferior.
I'm not talking about God at all.
To me, the basic point is when someome feels so strongly one way or another, it's not as much about information/reasoning/learning anymore, but about the filters that person looks through including emotional filters. I wanted that out on the table, because there is a lot more going on here than sharing facts.
The reason I pulled out your points was not to nitpick, but to point out that I didn't see basic fact, but rather interpretation of fact. Of course everyone is entitled, I just see that it's about opinion, and interpretation, and therefore pulling rank by anyone is futile.
You've made a bunch of comments in this thread alone where you have put yourself above another person. Frankly speaking, it comes off as condescension. If you were beyond people in comprehension and understanding, you'd possess the skill to impart your understandings, to a degree that others "got" them. The actuality I am seeing is that you are as unable to communicate such ideas effectively as anyone else, and therefore we are all quite on par.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Well I commend you for actually being able to discuss the issue instead of attacking me like most would reduce themselves to. Small minds come up with small answers I guess. It is my belief than man has been peeing in the proverbial gene pool for a long time now. More specifically in the the last 100 years by coddling undesirable traits that shouldn't be. It's really cruel to think this way but nature is pretty cruel in general. Watch any nature show. When a hyena swoops in to take a young newborn baby zebra by the neck that aint so great to watch, but that is reality. I believe there is a cause and effect for everything. I can't see how homosexuality is healthy, especially in males. How is fecal matter + reproductive system a good thing. It's an abomination. It's disgusting. Certainly something is very wrong there. It wouldn't take much to know that playing around with fecal waste is about as backwards to the human process as you can get. The male life bearing "device" is literally inserted into human waste. 180 deg out of balance. I believe bisexuality was the invention of homosexuality. The one twisted thought in someone that allowed that mindset to pass on genetic code. The gene pool is degrading, I can't see how furthering this idea, and embracing it, is anywhere close to being a good idea. However they're here and they're queer. So am I homophobic? no. I've actually gone to a few after hours gay bars and talked to lots of gay men. They would love to take me home. Every gay man I've met has told me this essentially. So no I don't hate gays. The sex part makes me want to dry heave endlessly though.
so then, actually...you are not basing this on any 'facts'...it's more like opinion on it. thank you. you just seemed so 'sure'....thus i thought perhaps you had some data to back it up. homosexuality has been around at least since the ancient greeks that i know of, so perhaps even longer. so if this is truly a 'degradation' of human genetics, it certainly is taking it's sweet time disappearing.
as to the 'rest' of your post. ahem, not to get too into it, however, there are hetero couples who follow those same 'practices'...so is it still an abbomination? esentially it's the same damn thing in that sense, reproductive organ in fecal matter, except instead of male into male, male into female...but still the same 'area'. to me, obviously, it's just yet another sexual practice...as there are many sexual practices that are all about sex, and nothing to do with reproduction. just a thought.
anyhoo...i still rather believe, and of course i have no data/proof either....but i still think in some way or another...that homosexuality and/or infertility...are all part of mother nature's plan...part of the 'grand design' if you will, of sustaining the planet., not having it overrun.....sustaining the species by offering additional support to others, etc. i don't fully believe that each and every creature born need to reproduce their exact genetic make-up to be an important member and contributor to the species.
as to everything else...i take no issue with anyone's personal opinion b/c it's just that...their personal opinion. sure if it infringes on my ability to make choices, i certainly would, but in the midst of a conversation, i merely enjoy reading the different perspectives.
Maybe my thought process is perhaps advanced for some people, and I take too much for granted that people know something of what I know to form an viable concept.
I think science has told us that quite effectively. Whether it's has a neat little packaged label on it like "genetic" really doesn't change some key concepts and observations throughout time pertaining to evolution. I did site a link that would lend to genetic disposition through pheremone recognition. I also said it was somehwat interesting. I also didn't parade it as fact.
this is where you're getting into trouble... claiming your thinking is so much more advanced than everyone else's on here at teh same time that you admit this is all just your thoughts and opinions. we're all familiar with the genetics of what you're saying. what we are saying is that your extrapolations from that are sketchy at best. calling homosexuality a defect or a dead end is not quite accurate. it is possible it serves a very specific purpose in the natural order that you are refusing to acknowledge. the feeling im getting is not that you looked at evidence and drew your conclusions, but that you had your conclusions then looked selectively for evidence to justify it.
also, dream hit on something ive asked numerous times. by your reasoning a married couple having sex is also an abomination and disgusting. is this true? is not oral sex then equally deplorable and unnatural?
and the same could be said for heterosexual couples who cannot procreate. some go the route of surrogates, etc. while i understand where you are coming from, if society has already deemed these things "OK" for hetero couples, i fail to see how it could be right to deny these same rights simply b/c someone is homosexual. you can say hetero couples are very 'selfish' then for going to great lengths to have their own child. selfish or not, we as a society have deemed it ok for them to be selfish. however, just b/c one can easil get pregnant and give bitrth...and another cannot...why is one more 'selfish' than the other? aren't they both equally 'selfish' then for wanting to reproduce in the first place...to rather have their own offspring rather than adopt? i think the bottomline is...why the double-standard? and why should you or i get to decide what is 'right' for a couple in regarsds to their wants/desires for a family? why is it on for heteros and not homosexcuals..who draws the line, where and why?
I gave what I thought was a pretty thought through reason why no, I don't think couples who cannot procreate are the same as homosexual couples. I'm sorry, I don't, and I don't really think they deserve the same rights for medical intervention (i.e. surogacy). In short, medical intervention is just that: medical. For those who recognise a need for it due to medical issues. Not for just anyone who 'wants it'. If gay people are going to argue that 'there is nothing wrong with them', and that homosexuality is not a deviation from what nature intended, fine. But let them leave medical intervention for the people who sadly realise that infertility, is.
A few pages back. Feel free to have at it, I can take it
i think my above post pretty well describes in exact detail my exact thoughts on this topic...so not much to add. i have no need nor desire to 'have at it' as you put it. you're entitled to your opinion. sure, i think you're wrong...haha.....but so what? however, i will take usse with one thing....there is NO 'medical need' for a specific couple to undergo assisted reproduction; it is a WANT. thus, it's a want both heteros and homosexuals both may have...and imho...if it's deemed 'ok' by society to meet that need for one group, i do not see how it is right to deny another group that same right based on sexual orientation and nothing else. yes, my opinion. agree, disagree...whatever. but sure, if i ever have the chance to vote in a way to show support for such, you betcha i will. however, i do not have at it, nor get upset when someone shares their opinion...we're all free to think and say what we wish.
this is where you're getting into trouble... claiming your thinking is so much more advanced than everyone else's on here at teh same time that you admit this is all just your thoughts and opinions. we're all familiar with the genetics of what you're saying. what we are saying is that your extrapolations from that are sketchy at best. calling homosexuality a defect or a dead end is not quite accurate. it is possible it serves a very specific purpose in the natural order that you are refusing to acknowledge. the feeling im getting is not that you looked at evidence and drew your conclusions, but that you had your conclusions then looked selectively for evidence to justify it.
also, dream hit on something ive asked numerous times. by your reasoning a married couple having sex is also an abomination and disgusting. is this true? is not oral sex then equally deplorable and unnatural?
well, yes. i think that's where the issue lies. perhaps one's thinking is more 'advanced'..who knows...but overall claiming your opinion/hypothesis is basically right, with no true data to back that up....is a bit far out there. thus why i kept asking. is it plausible? sure. however, even focused purely on the cold, hard science of it...i do believe there are other possibilities/factors that are just as plausible in this equation. and yea, i've shared them numerous times...and sure have been adddressed, but certainly have not had any evidence suggested to prove such a hypothesis incorrect either.
as to your last Q...don't you mean anal sex? i don't think straight up vaginal intercourse would fit in his 'abomination' scenario. i was more curious if it was the act of anal sex period, or merely male anal sex...which was so offensive. and yes, exactly what i was getting at....lots of sexual actitivites that have ZERO to do with procreation.
anyway.........NONE of this really has much bearing on whether or not one considers homosexuals RAISING a child. if you take out of the equation how a gay couple becomes a parent - whether thru adoption or reproassist - still is, what exactly about homosexuality would have one possibly think they would not make an excellent parent?
kids are born from females and males mating end of. I dont care if someone is homosexual, but by mking that chose they have foregone the opportunity of having children naturally and in my opinion should not be allowed children by any other means,, eg adoption.
I agree.... I feel you give up your right for kids when you make that choice. The kid would never live a normal life, and thats not fair to the kid. I think being gay is a bad thing. And let me say I have nothing against them personally, I have friends who are gay and I have said the same thing to them (they dont get mad, its fun going back and forth on these subjects) but its just not right. Its not how lifes supose to be, but whatever.
I agree.... I feel you give up your right for kids when you make that choice. The kid would never live a normal life, and thats not fair to the kid. I think being gay is a bad thing. And let me say I have nothing against them personally, I have friends who are gay and I have said the same thing to them (they dont get mad, its fun going back and forth on these subjects) but its just not right. Its not how lifes supose to be, but whatever.
Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve
however...what about infertile heterosexual couples? they can't conceive on their own, and yet society fully supports their rights to undergo all forms of assisted reproduction and/or adoption.
i honestly don't follow the 'it's not right' analogy at all. simply b/c oftentimes, life is not ideal. there are single parents, kids who live with grandparents, aunts/uncles, foster families, etc. even way back in primitive times, if a male say got eaten off by a gazelle....now that child was fatherless and with his/her mother and i would think assisted by other clan members, etc. and hey....i am CERTAIN there are gays who have fathered children through the 'natural way'...and then decided to live out in the open with their homosexual lifestyle...so is that 'not right'...? i mean, there are so many variables here. i personally do not believe there is only one right way to have a family.
sure, we're all entitled to our opinions...but i just think what our own personal views are...and what is truly 'right', for some, may not coincide.
how about all those societies that bring children up collectively or leave it exclusively to the women?
i imagine back in the day childrearing was more of a collective pursuit than it is today. childrearing these days seems to be the exclusive domain of the child's natural or adoptive aprents whereas i feel it would be, more beneficial for everyone involved if it were a more collective pursuit. in my opinion the segregation between our private and our public lives is more detrimental to our lives than many of us are willing to admit.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
how about all those societies that bring children up collectively or leave it exclusively to the women?
i imagine back in the day childrearing was more of a collective pursuit than it is today. childrearing these days seems to be the exclusive domain of the child's natural or adoptive aprents whereas i feel it would be, more beneficial for everyone involved if it were a more collective pursuit. in my opinion the segregation between our private and our public lives is more detrimental to our lives than many of us are willing to admit.
"it takes a village to raise a child."
thank you.
that was kinda the point i was trying to get at in a few of my posts, but just wasn't getting there. haha. that really was what i was thinking. i truly believe that having homosexual parents is NOT going to be detrimental to a child, as long as he/she is brought up in a loving/supportive environment. whatever 'issues' it may bring up for a child, or not, i don't think will be anymore than any other possible BS a child has to deal with growing up....and like ANY couple hoping for a child, whether through adoption or assisted reproduction..the child will be greatly desired.
How do you know that? Gay people shouldn't be allowed to raise children because they won't be "normal"? Should we deny children to anybody who lives in an abnormal environment? No, it's better to just let unwanted children die on the side of the road.
Comments
it's not a stretch to go the other way. this may shock you, but women urinate out of their vaginas and that stuff coming out of your peepee is also waste matter. yet you have no qualms putting those two together. i assume that you are equally opposed to tagging your wife or girlfriend "in a very uncomfortable place" (thank you kevin smith!)?
also, i must congratulate you on being irresistable to gay men. ive known many gay men. ive never once had them tell me they couldnt wait to take me home. i respected their lifestyle and made no effort to change it and they did the same.
i also dont get the eliminating bad genes thing. i take it you're referring to things like diabetes and mental retardation? we should let these people fend for themselves and if they can't cut it tough shit? sterilize the mentally ill? it sounds like you're talking about eugenics and that's a pretty frightening slippery slope.
Urine is sterile...you can drink it to survive...eat your feces...well we've head all about e-coli ilnesses and deaths.
I'm stating scientific fact devoid of emotion, and reflecting this to observable phonema in nature. Sterilize people..no no... hit it at the source before conception. We can't succeed after the fact because we have emotions...who could watch a baby suffer and die? Animals do it all the time. It does not mean my argument is not correct with regards to altering our genetic path and the reasons thereof.
If people can't see this argument for what it is then oh well. That's fine but to say im wrong would be very misinformed.
My point is to prove a concept that very few actually realize, yet many criticize. But it still does not come close to proving me wrong. I have yet to see evidence of it in this thread...
In reality today? slipery slope sure...who's going to start euthanizing children? dear lord!? not I... I'm actually against abortion even.
I hope you can see what I mean in my viewpoint. Identifying a problem leads further towards it's solution. It's funny to see people lash out though, as I have stated that I support gay adoption, and acceptance of gays, and I have several gay friends...all in this same thread...and all of which is true.
righton....dude....thanks for clarifying your approach....i really admire you for trailblazing, no attack on your oh so intelligent approach.....i just sent you a one-line rant PM.
but you're like a self-professed victim here, and by the way, haven't you heard of other animals taking care of/or adopting other baby animals.
i see your argument, i just dont think it's as ironclad as you do. as decides2dream pointed out, could homosexuality not just be part of nature's plan? furthermore, as i mentioned before but i think it got missed... gay people do not have only gay children and straight people do not have only straight children. thus, there's no one "gay gene" to be passing out that is gonig to either die out or wipe us out. it's a random occurrence like many other things, from eye color to albinoism to dwarfism. i see what you're saying about species procreation, but i dont think homosexuality is going to make any sort of dent on it. i think our gene pool is in far more danger from the chemicals and radiation and hormones we add to our food on a daily basis than it is from homosexuals.
though im curious what you mean by "at the source before conception." i can relate it to not allowing gays to use fertility treatments and whatnot. but to me, that still entails banning the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, midgets, etc from reproducing. maybe you're not advocating sterilization, but you're still talking about denying all these people reproductive rights on genetic grounds. i dont think there's anything WE can do with fertility treatments to beat mother nature.
and for the record, if that means you're not down with giving it to your gf "in through the out door" then you're missing out
Me and my g/f are NOT going to adopt, we are going to have children that are hers and a donor's. Rightondude thinks that in doing this we are not following the path of nature. As far as the donor's surplus of sperm and my g/f's eggs are concerned, there's nothing out of the ordinary there. It's nature for men to ejaculate and for women to get pregnant. And no, the donor is not going to deliver his goods Adam&Eve's way, so yeah go ahead and argue this is most unnatural. Do you drink your milk straight from the cow by the way?
On our undesiarable trait. We cannot reproduce, this is true. But as other people have already said: our kids will not be gay just because we are. They might have asthma though, as my lovely g/f has it. Next time she has an attack and can't reach her inhaler, should I let nature follow its chosen path and let her die?
As to separating emotion from science.... You are against abortion. So if a girl gets raped and gets pregnant against her will, you would like to follow the chosen part of nature again? Or do you think that might be a bit unfair?
Peace out
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
I see homosexuality as a probable progression of bisexuality, and mens ever present untamed libido in leading them into deviation of a bisexual nature as introducing the "mindset" (for lack of specific genetic proof at this point in time) into the mix. Once the human mind has been completely unravelled I think we will know much more, or all that is reality. Will homosexuality wipe us out....very unlikely. At present nature has brought the equation, and probably always will back into balance, perhaps a new balance. Homosexuality goes extremely far back before any written word, or any expression of verbal communication for that matter imo. To willingly expand the notion of introducing further genetic integration of homosexual deviation on a wider scale could very well be asking for unknown consequences. What that will be? Who knows. But not to not recognize this would be unwise though.
Hitting it at the source is a very good question, of which I wish I had a viable answer for. A catch 22 with the human condition, simply by the fact that our emotions, and abilities are highly developed when compared to the animal realm. I still stand by my comprehension of the situation though, but I cannot provide answers to this highly emotional scenario. I wish I had all the answers. What can we do at this point? Good question, other than to identify it and recognise it. Hopefully science can provide further clarification with additional research on the human genome. Perhaps science can "map us out" before preparing to concieve, and provide us an answer to eliminate ilnesses, diseases, disabilities, and other bodily suseptibilities, etc......many issues there as well, even towards my own argument, on what is natural anymore. In any event, this is where we all are. We cannot remove ourselves *from* ourselves and how we react with regards to compassion. All we can do is just try to understand the concept and hope for the best for all in the future.
Let me just repeat that one more time: "genetic integration of homosexual deviation". Wow.
Seriously though, we are now entering the realm of speculation. And need it be said again: there is no gay gene.
Are you the same person who said we have to follow nature's chosen path? The very same who is against abortion? Mapping people out "before preparing to conceive" to "Provide us an answer to eliminate illnesses, diseases, disabilities". Sounds scary to me.
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
that pharse makes better sense as "Deviation by Genetic Integration of Homosexulity" or "Genetic Integration of Homosexuality is a Deviation from....."
there is a genetic basis to everything.....everything in science is showing to come down to this level.
Very good post!
And rightondude. may I ask you what your qualifications are? Are you in the field of genetic research? What do you know about genetics, anyway? I'm very interested in this, I might have missed it but I haven't seen your credentials on the subject, neither have I seen any source that backs up your statement. I'm not saying your statement is wrong... but I'd really like to know.
naděje umírá poslední
Science has created, or allowed for, many of the genetic problems I'm talking about. I would believe stark evidence of mans intervention in nature. Not drinking milk from the cow or even owning a cow but still drinking milk is a cake and eat it to scenario.
5000+ years ago if I didn't own a tamed cow, I probably couldn't drink it's milk. You might also have a hard time getting a guy to let go into a cup. Most primitive men might not be so nice, or willing in the process to even consider this, and would have their way with you as often as they desire. Men are untamed animals in this regard, to imagine no laws or consequence to man's actions could be a very scary reality for many a gay woman. You would probably have to live in isolation and come out of hiding just to "breed" or risk being "raped" in this case repeatedly in a primitive society or village. Being outcast in a village usually meant death around 4000+ years ago. Would the baby, or you, survive the hardships of being pregnant in an untamed world without mans protection and support i.e. food shelter safety from animals? Much has changed in society the past 5,000 years alone. Homosexuality has really only been able to really proliferate socially in the just past 30-50 years. It's been a big secret until now. So I could argue that it is increasing substantially.
I believe the first bisexual thinking person was a man that carried forward this tendency and gave offspring to like minded women over time. Men are hornballs. Continual carrying forward of this trait would lead it to develop into full polarity leading to homosexuality. That's total opinion though.
Back in history your partner would not have access to an inhaler so you might not have a choice on her outcome.
Anyhow what does this matter now...very little.
I am not against abortion in extreme circumstances I should have clarified this I am not a black and white thinking person. Gang rape would be an obvious consideration... just not as birth control measure.
Anyhow back to your current situation. I can't press my beliefs on you and say you're going to hell shame on you. That mentality would select me out in an evolutionary sense in today's society. We are definitely evolving and changing over time it seems very apparent to me. Thinking is good. Not thinking is bad. I love breaking steroetypes and beliefs, I always have to figure out how something works for some reason, what I do in the process is usually unconventional.
besides all that...I wish you all the best. Hapiness is the ultimate answer to everything I believe. Find it in whatever form you can that provides it. that to me is the ultimate human condition and answer thus far.
If humans have been degenerating their genetic code over the past 100 years, thereby limiting their 'success' as a species, why is it that over the past 100 years, humans have only become more successful? That's just the brain and emotion, not nature? Anything else in nature can be considered a natural trait, but the human mind is something different? No. We have used our minds - even the "evolutionarily limiting" emotional aspects of them - to make ourselves one of the most successful species on the planet in the same way a cat uses its claws to gut a mouse for it's own survival.
As for homosexuality being a "dead-end." - well maybe, and this is just a maybe, it is for the gay individual; but for the species as a whole, it doesn't seem to have had much of an effect.
Oh, and the human condition is relevent in this case. The 'human condition' is part of our environment, and environment has quite a bit to do with evolution.
If two people want to have a kid & love it...why should anyone stand in their way?
Oh that's right the object is to keep raising homophobes.
What would the world come to if we still stood behind the constitution?
Got to spend it all,.....
"Those who dance are called insane by those who don't hear the music." EV
1-14-95, 9-04-00, 7-01-03, 5-30-06, 10-21-06, 10-22-06, 6-17-08, 6-22-08, 8-16-08 E.V., 6-15-09 E.V., 10-28-09, 5-13-10.
Agreed, but:
"The 50% concordance rate for identical twins indicates that there is a genetic influence on sexual orientation but that there are other influences as well (if sexual orientation were solely genetically influenced, the concordance rate for identical twins would be 100%). Behavior is complex, influenced by many genes. Furthermore, different people might become homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual for different reasons; for some, a neuroendocrine explanation might be best; for others, an environmental explanation might be best.
Some people hope that proof that sexual orientation is genetically influenced might reduce discrimination against lesbigay persons. There is some basis for this hope: A poll showed that Americans who think that homosexuality is a choice have more negative attitudes than those who think it cannot be changed. However, proof that sexual orientation is genetic will not necessarily prevent discrimination, just as the fact that race is genetic has not prevented racial discrimination. Acceptance of people of all sexual orientations is important regardless of the cause of sexual orientation."
Source: http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/february97/muehlen.htm
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
i think this is the crux of things here. your points are valid, but they are no more than hypoethsis and theories at present. you talk about the progression of homosexuality, but you have no facts of evidence to point to when discussing that progression. we dont know if it's increasing or not. it used to be hidden, so it's entirely possible its seeming "increase" now is simply a matter of people being more willing to be open about it. from the flipside, you could say open homosexuality is a healthy thing, becos before you had men or women who were gay getting married and having kids anyway... thus passing it on in accordance with your theory. allowing them marriage and encouraging open acceptance of it might be a way to minimize its spread if that concerns you. part of that is not treating them differently. im really not sure how many gay and lesbian couples are opting for surrogates to get children but im reasonably certain it's not exactly a huge amount.
anyway, ive phrased it before in an ill-advised personal manner so id like to ask it more rhetorically. you claim to be so disgusted by "gay sex." but you only speak of homosexual male relations as justification. women dont do that, in fact im willing to bet you do the same thing to you wife or girlfriend that lesbian partners do to each other. furthermore, do you have equal disgust for a married male-female couple who engage in anal sex that you do for gay couples? im not trying to be snarky or humorous, im honestly curious about the basis for your disgust with homosexual relations.
I believe there were plenty of gay people around at that point in time as well, they just didn't practice and if they did, yes, they were probably killed. The fact that homosexuality has been accepted a bit more recently does mean more people are coming out, but that doesn't prove people in primitive village didn't fancy people of the same sex.
Tendency. Hm. Like I've said, in my opinion, homosexuality has been around since the beginning of evolution. I would almost go as far as to say that it is normal for ALL people to fancy people of the same sex at least one time in their lives, whether they like it or not. But that's my opinion
I wish you all the best too, it's been interesting to read your opinions and theories
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
I think we lapsed our responses to each other in writing them. I may have addressed most of what you are asking in my last post.
However you sound like you have a good grasp of the situation. We would come down to mere opinions in hashing finer details. Science hasn't etched it on the epitaph as of yet. I look at the "tells" and use it as a basis for my conclusions. It's like making up a great plate of food at a buffet...bit of this bit of that...see if it tastes good...go back try again...That's ok with me, Life is boring when it's all the same. Really its not an I'm right or you're wrong scenario anymore. An open mind catches the most knowledge. You would appear to be well on your way in this regard
Then you went on to admit this when hippiemom challenged you:
Furthermore, you made these points:
You talk about breeding an “undesirable” trait (according to evolution in your words) into society. I call that out as being your opinion regarding the undesirability of this trait. Numerous people have pointed out that this trait has existed in humanity through time, and therefore nature is proving that it has a purpose, whether we are acknowledging it or not.
To me, all of your “facts” sound rather like your personal interpretation of the facts.
For example, as it was pointed out, if a "gay gene" has not been identified, then the concept of "mutation" in this regard is misleading.
Evolution allows that we discover advances exactly when we do--ones that increase life expectancy, quality of life, and the ability to create, design and innovate in all areas. It sounds like you have a personal bias against homosexual practises that you are so adamant to see it as an undesirable trait, even when there are other plausible explanations.
I've noticed a lot of emotion from you in this thread--hostile comments levelled at posters when you seemed frustrated. Or talking down to others, and using power plays such as "end of discussion". Many times that I noticed this, such posters were making valid, reasoned arguments. It's pretty obvious to me that there is certainly an emotional element to this for you.
In the final analysis for me, nature is what it is, including the effects of the entirely relevent human condition. This regardless of our personal interpretations and opinions of what nature is about.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Toronto 2000
London 2005
Hamilton 2005
Toronto 2006
I reserve the right to express hostility when people call me out as a sad fuck clueless retard, jackass etc... whatever. I'm not going back to look and nitpick it. I'm not flawless in controlling my emotions, who is? I do however call people out when they don't see simple concepts such as the process of natural selection and passing on physical traits and then continue to call me clueless. Maybe my thought process is perhaps advanced for some people, and I take too much for granted that people know something of what I know to form an viable concept. Why the heck would I be here discussing this in the first place if I knew, and have proven, all these things as fact? I'd be too busy signing papers for all my nobel awards, and speaking at lectures for $20,000/hr
Science hasn't even proven evolution yet...so it's a still a theory. God is still a theory. However the obvious like being, or not being, able to pass on physical traits is pretty cut and dry. You either create or you don't create (gay/straight). I think science has told us that quite effectively. Whether it's has a neat little packaged label on it like "genetic" really doesn't change some key concepts and observations throughout time pertaining to evolution. I did site a link that would lend to genetic disposition through pheremone recognition. I also said it was somehwat interesting. I also didn't parade it as fact.
I believe I am doing the gay community a service by stating their actions out of their control..i.e development at birth. When else could it possibly occur? before conception? I also said God is not an argument it is a purely circular conversation in opinion. This would seem to validate the gay community somewhat no?
To assume I, or anyone, can account for the actions and lives of everyone that has ever lived up until this point and how they've interacted throughout history is unrealistic. I cannot recreate the history of mankind since the dawn of time for people here, yet it would seem that I need to, in order to convey some simple concepts, while taking various personal attacks along the way. I think I've excersized an appropriate level on control in my responses considering my reality of it, and considering the timeline in the progression of the conversation.
Everything is a theory in this area of discussion. I assume people also know that. Perhaps I assume too much of people. I can't fathom knowing less than what I know in actuality. Until the human mind and universe is completely unravelled *everything* is really just a theory... That would explain why laws are being continually revised as we go forward...something that we once considered 100% certainty has now become uncertain and so on...
I really can't add more than that to this thread. People will continue on as they always will. Hopefully with one or two more sparks going on up top.
I don't have to be here...I do it for myself mostly. nothing is forever so they say...
/end of rant
Of course, you're totally entitled to your view, and I mean that with sincerity.
I understand that others frustrate you and cause you an emotional response. What I don't understand is when it appears you don't understand when it happens to others.
I was feeling uncomfortable in this thread because no matter who started a negative tone and when, a lot of completely valid views were put down, many by you. It sets up an ugliness pertaining to the subject matter. I was hesitant to come in here and say my point for "fear" of being called somehow inferior.
I'm not talking about God at all.
To me, the basic point is when someome feels so strongly one way or another, it's not as much about information/reasoning/learning anymore, but about the filters that person looks through including emotional filters. I wanted that out on the table, because there is a lot more going on here than sharing facts.
The reason I pulled out your points was not to nitpick, but to point out that I didn't see basic fact, but rather interpretation of fact. Of course everyone is entitled, I just see that it's about opinion, and interpretation, and therefore pulling rank by anyone is futile.
You've made a bunch of comments in this thread alone where you have put yourself above another person. Frankly speaking, it comes off as condescension. If you were beyond people in comprehension and understanding, you'd possess the skill to impart your understandings, to a degree that others "got" them. The actuality I am seeing is that you are as unable to communicate such ideas effectively as anyone else, and therefore we are all quite on par.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
so then, actually...you are not basing this on any 'facts'...it's more like opinion on it. thank you. you just seemed so 'sure'....thus i thought perhaps you had some data to back it up. homosexuality has been around at least since the ancient greeks that i know of, so perhaps even longer. so if this is truly a 'degradation' of human genetics, it certainly is taking it's sweet time disappearing.
as to the 'rest' of your post. ahem, not to get too into it, however, there are hetero couples who follow those same 'practices'...so is it still an abbomination? esentially it's the same damn thing in that sense, reproductive organ in fecal matter, except instead of male into male, male into female...but still the same 'area'. to me, obviously, it's just yet another sexual practice...as there are many sexual practices that are all about sex, and nothing to do with reproduction. just a thought.
anyhoo...i still rather believe, and of course i have no data/proof either....but i still think in some way or another...that homosexuality and/or infertility...are all part of mother nature's plan...part of the 'grand design' if you will, of sustaining the planet., not having it overrun.....sustaining the species by offering additional support to others, etc. i don't fully believe that each and every creature born need to reproduce their exact genetic make-up to be an important member and contributor to the species.
as to everything else...i take no issue with anyone's personal opinion b/c it's just that...their personal opinion. sure if it infringes on my ability to make choices, i certainly would, but in the midst of a conversation, i merely enjoy reading the different perspectives.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
this is where you're getting into trouble... claiming your thinking is so much more advanced than everyone else's on here at teh same time that you admit this is all just your thoughts and opinions. we're all familiar with the genetics of what you're saying. what we are saying is that your extrapolations from that are sketchy at best. calling homosexuality a defect or a dead end is not quite accurate. it is possible it serves a very specific purpose in the natural order that you are refusing to acknowledge. the feeling im getting is not that you looked at evidence and drew your conclusions, but that you had your conclusions then looked selectively for evidence to justify it.
also, dream hit on something ive asked numerous times. by your reasoning a married couple having sex is also an abomination and disgusting. is this true? is not oral sex then equally deplorable and unnatural?
i think my above post pretty well describes in exact detail my exact thoughts on this topic...so not much to add. i have no need nor desire to 'have at it' as you put it. you're entitled to your opinion. sure, i think you're wrong...haha.....but so what? however, i will take usse with one thing....there is NO 'medical need' for a specific couple to undergo assisted reproduction; it is a WANT. thus, it's a want both heteros and homosexuals both may have...and imho...if it's deemed 'ok' by society to meet that need for one group, i do not see how it is right to deny another group that same right based on sexual orientation and nothing else. yes, my opinion. agree, disagree...whatever. but sure, if i ever have the chance to vote in a way to show support for such, you betcha i will. however, i do not have at it, nor get upset when someone shares their opinion...we're all free to think and say what we wish.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
top of page 5
second post- page 7.
so yeah, i dont think ill be paying that invoice.
well, yes. i think that's where the issue lies. perhaps one's thinking is more 'advanced'..who knows...but overall claiming your opinion/hypothesis is basically right, with no true data to back that up....is a bit far out there. thus why i kept asking. is it plausible? sure. however, even focused purely on the cold, hard science of it...i do believe there are other possibilities/factors that are just as plausible in this equation. and yea, i've shared them numerous times...and sure have been adddressed, but certainly have not had any evidence suggested to prove such a hypothesis incorrect either.
as to your last Q...don't you mean anal sex? i don't think straight up vaginal intercourse would fit in his 'abomination' scenario. i was more curious if it was the act of anal sex period, or merely male anal sex...which was so offensive. and yes, exactly what i was getting at....lots of sexual actitivites that have ZERO to do with procreation.
anyway.........NONE of this really has much bearing on whether or not one considers homosexuals RAISING a child. if you take out of the equation how a gay couple becomes a parent - whether thru adoption or reproassist - still is, what exactly about homosexuality would have one possibly think they would not make an excellent parent?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I agree.... I feel you give up your right for kids when you make that choice. The kid would never live a normal life, and thats not fair to the kid. I think being gay is a bad thing. And let me say I have nothing against them personally, I have friends who are gay and I have said the same thing to them (they dont get mad, its fun going back and forth on these subjects) but its just not right. Its not how lifes supose to be, but whatever.
Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve
however...what about infertile heterosexual couples? they can't conceive on their own, and yet society fully supports their rights to undergo all forms of assisted reproduction and/or adoption.
i honestly don't follow the 'it's not right' analogy at all. simply b/c oftentimes, life is not ideal. there are single parents, kids who live with grandparents, aunts/uncles, foster families, etc. even way back in primitive times, if a male say got eaten off by a gazelle....now that child was fatherless and with his/her mother and i would think assisted by other clan members, etc. and hey....i am CERTAIN there are gays who have fathered children through the 'natural way'...and then decided to live out in the open with their homosexual lifestyle...so is that 'not right'...? i mean, there are so many variables here. i personally do not believe there is only one right way to have a family.
sure, we're all entitled to our opinions...but i just think what our own personal views are...and what is truly 'right', for some, may not coincide.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
i imagine back in the day childrearing was more of a collective pursuit than it is today. childrearing these days seems to be the exclusive domain of the child's natural or adoptive aprents whereas i feel it would be, more beneficial for everyone involved if it were a more collective pursuit. in my opinion the segregation between our private and our public lives is more detrimental to our lives than many of us are willing to admit.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"it takes a village to raise a child."
thank you.
that was kinda the point i was trying to get at in a few of my posts, but just wasn't getting there. haha. that really was what i was thinking. i truly believe that having homosexual parents is NOT going to be detrimental to a child, as long as he/she is brought up in a loving/supportive environment. whatever 'issues' it may bring up for a child, or not, i don't think will be anymore than any other possible BS a child has to deal with growing up....and like ANY couple hoping for a child, whether through adoption or assisted reproduction..the child will be greatly desired.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Nobody "chooses" who they're attracted to.
How do you know that? Gay people shouldn't be allowed to raise children because they won't be "normal"? Should we deny children to anybody who lives in an abnormal environment? No, it's better to just let unwanted children die on the side of the road.
Why? Because they're not perfect like you?
Haha, yeah right.
Typical lame homophobic comment.