# If you think homosexuality is an unnatural condition...



## VILEPLUME (Sep 5, 2013)

[youtube]TzV1r5SCc8U[/youtube]

If only the world had more Christians like this man.


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Sep 5, 2013)

Good vid^Plume.I myself am not into christianity,but this man at leaste shines some light onto some of the prejudice causing dialogue that is held within the bible,he seems hold his viewpoint on homosexuality in a more unbias and intelligent manner as well.I can agree with him that homosexuality isnt some choice you just make,its a natural preference ,though I am not a homosexual myself.I love my women!I can sympathise with his view.I like his quote he took from the bible to basicaly dash the prejudice towards gays in the argument,he made some really valid points on it.The look on the pastors face is priceless,,he almost seems mad,lol.


----------



## Fazer1rlg (Sep 5, 2013)

The pastor was definitely mad. I don't think it's a normal condition when kids become molested and hurt as a child by same sex there is a high probability for them to turn out like that as well. People molest kids because of how sexually exposed the world is to the shit in the media and all over. People are trying to make it seem normal when in reality they think its normal cause its all on TV. People wonder why kids are having sex at an earlier age and why kids are maturing at a way faster age now. None of this is normal they are portraying it to be because if he really did believe in Jesus he couldn't believe both. That is contradicting itself right there, that's why Jesus came to the world to show and teach people that slaveory, blood sacrifices, and all that wasn't right. So for him to try to throw the slaveory and shit doesn't really work because that's why Jesus came to show us what's right. And homosexuality isn't normal nor right, them people have been confused into thinking its okay.


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Sep 5, 2013)

So if the cause of their homosexuality is from being molested as a child,your basically saying they should be inhumanely alienated and persecuted based on the dogma of the bible?To have no compassion for their affliction and just simply judge them as abominations without consideration?That is insanity and bullshit.Kids are having sex at an earlier age for a myriad of different reasons, one of them could be molestation at an early age,but it is not the sole reason nor the tantamount of such occurrance.If homosexuality is not normal then why has it been around as long as humans have?I bet 10 to 1 the earliest human tribes and civilization had lesbos and gay dudes in the mix,it didnt just start recently happening out of the blue.


----------



## Fazer1rlg (Sep 5, 2013)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> So if the cause of their homosexuality is from being molested as a child,your basically saying they should be inhumanely alienated and persecuted based on the dogma of the bible?To have no compassion for their affliction and just simply judge them as abominations without consideration?That is insanity and bullshit.Kids are having sex at an earlier age for a myriad of different reasons, one of them could be molestation at an early age,but it is not the sole reason nor the tantamount of such occurrance.If homosexuality is not normal then why has it been around as long as humans have?I bet 10 to 1 the earliest human tribes and civilization had lesbos and gay dudes in the mix,it didnt just start recently happening out of the blue.


I never said that so that statement is insanity and bullshit. The cause is the media simple as that what kids see on tv makes them curious. Just cause something's been around doesn't make it normal.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 5, 2013)

I didn't watch it, but I think it is a great video because it is exactly 4:20 minutes long...


----------



## Lurkdewitt (Sep 5, 2013)

Being gay isn't something that you decide one day, and sexual abuse and certainly not homosexuality on TV does not encourage being curious with the same sex. I grew up around my sister watching the l word, and broke back mountain and other shows of the like, and I never wanted to do anything homosexual, because well, I am not gay. This isn't a religious or social issue, its a step over the line into personal freedom and morality. People need to realize that being homosexual is just as natural as being asexual and heterosexual. Everyone is different and to be honest I find it silly that people care so much about stopping two people in love from being able to share the same benefits of heterosexual couples. Whether you think being gay is morally wrong based on your religious or your social morals only really matter to people with your same morals. And let's face it, everyone has different opinions on what's right and wrong. Who are we to say someone is weird for doing something that is natural to them? Just my .02.


----------



## VILEPLUME (Sep 5, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> I didn't watch it, but I think it is a great video because it is exactly 4:20 minutes long...


lol, I noticed that too.


----------



## huklburryfin (Sep 5, 2013)

How can he admit that sexuality is a inherited, non choice, but then allow others to go to hell? How can he say that sexuality is determined, but other choices are not? Im supposing that he believes in free will, otherwise the idea of hell would be completely pointless and his religion would be obviously illogical. He probably took this stance to get votes.


----------



## Grojak (Sep 5, 2013)

Drove by a church the other day that had a rainbow sign in front that read "God excepts Everyone" I had to double take


----------



## boedhaspeaks (Sep 5, 2013)

Why is it so important to know what other people do in their bedrooms? Two people like each other and thats what count.


----------



## Derple (Sep 5, 2013)

That guy looks like he's about to bust a nut through the whole video. Universal love ftw!


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Sep 5, 2013)

Fazer1rlg said:


> I never said that so that statement is insanity and bullshit. The cause is the media simple as that what kids see on tv makes them curious. Just cause something's been around doesn't make it normal.


lol,Ok dude.http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/10/19/is-homosexuality-a-choice/ ,take your time and read it.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 5, 2013)

VILEPLUME said:


> [youtube]TzV1r5SCc8U[/youtube]
> 
> If only the world had more Christians like this man.


Owned........


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 6, 2013)

VILEPLUME said:


> [youtube]TzV1r5SCc8U[/youtube]
> 
> If only the world had more Christians like this man.


 The religious left always make more sense than the religiousright but they come out of the same church and both feed the intolerancewhether they want to or not.

I was asked how to deal with gays. How do you deal with thegay condition when you find it?

My answer was a bit simple. 

You recognize and describe it as a genetic defect and moveon without doing damage to the ability to love of the one who has it.

Nature has caused all of us to be as we are with our variousgenetic defects. Be nice when that condition happens to one in your family asit inevitably will. That is how family value is expressed.

You just tell them the truth and then let gays follow theirnatural tendencies and as long as things are kept between consenting adults,there will be no problem. You then tell them to seek the highest human ideal,love, find it with whomever they choose, and have a great life. 

That is what moral people would do when that conditionenters their genetic line as it inevitably will. 
That is what moral parents and people would do.

Regards
DL


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 6, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> The religious left always make more sense than the religiousright but they come out of the same church and both feed the intolerancewhether they want to or not.
> 
> I was asked how to deal with gays. How do you deal with thegay condition when you find it?
> 
> ...


That doesn't fix anything

The problem isn't that people are gay, it's that people don't accept them as equal. The problem therein lies with the people being intolerant.

It's not a defect of any kind, and I think telling someone that it is is offensive, especially if they're gay, in the same way it would be offensive to you if someone said being straight is a defect


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 6, 2013)

Padawanbater2 said:


> That doesn't fix anything
> 
> The problem isn't that people are gay, it's that people don't accept them as equal. The problem therein lies with the people being intolerant.
> 
> It's not a defect of any kind, and I think telling someone that it is is offensive, especially if they're gay, in the same way it would be offensive to you if someone said being straight is a defect


 
You are right that it is all about intolerance but my answeris still the most honest.

Telling a member of a species that must reproduce to sustainitself that it is not a defect to not have the motivation or desire toreproduce with one from the opposite sex, is the truth and not a lie. 

If all of us had that defect, the species would die out.

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise thanas they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they mustnecessarily be created for the best end.&#8221;

The best end for a human or any animal is to pass on hisgenes. 

If not having the sexual drive that sustains life is not agenetic defect then what is it?

Regards
DL


----------



## Grojak (Sep 7, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> You recognize and describe it as a genetic defect and moveon without doing damage to the ability to love of the one who has it.
> 
> Nature has caused all of us to be as we are with our variousgenetic defects. Be nice when that condition happens to one in your family asit inevitably will. That is how family value is expressed.
> 
> You just tell them the truth and then let gays follow theirnatural tendencies and as long as things are kept between consenting adults,there will be no problem. You then tell them to seek the highest human ideal,love, find it with whomever they choose, and have a great life.



See man you're not part of a solution, you're part of a problem!!! Genetic defect, who are you to say there is a genetic defect? Peruvian tribes deep in the jungle are for the most part bisexual, they bond with men and have gay acts with them while also having a wife. In a society far from "civilized world" and primitive as could be their bi sexual (lets not forget the romans and their butt sex). Gay is not a defect is natural and occurs far more often than is recognized because of people like you who see it as a DEFECT!!

You're answer is a backhanded acceptance... "Oh I except you for being defective", what the shit is that about? How many people get pregnant by accident or how many people have babies that should not are you glad when a 16 year old gets pregnant? I know plenty of straight people that are beyond baby making years and never had one are they as defective as gays? There are plenty of idiots having kids, too many kids for a million gays to affect our society by not reproducing... and hell those DEFECTIVE fuckers adopt that 16 year olds unwanted child, what awful people!!

Until People like you and to a higher level the truly intolerant change their tunes children will continue to be molested by men/women who are in the public eye "straight". Look at Penn State, you had a man of high power married with kids but a closet gay but because of our intolerant society he just can't be openly gay so he preyed on the young and weak no doubt black mailing them to stay quiet... this worked for 20 years. I'm not saying if everyone excepted gay/bisexuals this wouldn't happen, I am saying if everyone excepted gay/bisexuals it would happen LESS because people would just be open to say "Hey I love my wife and my family but sometimes I like to smoke a little pole" That is something marriage counseling and the couple can work out but it's not for the church or radicals to figure out for them!!


----------



## *BUDS (Sep 7, 2013)

He looks gay himself.


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 7, 2013)

Grojak said:


> See man you're not part of a solution, you're part of a problem!!! Genetic defect, who are you to say there is a genetic defect?


 
Let&#8217;s ignore the rest of your rant for now.

If not a genetic defect, then what cause people to be gay?

Regards
DL


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 7, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Lets ignore the rest of your rant for now.
> 
> If not a genetic defect, then what cause people to be gay?
> 
> ...


 Simple evolutionary advantage. The better-bonded tribes have a bigger stake in making it. It is the Creationist simplistic overlay to posit that sex is only for reproduction. Sex is the directest diplomacy, the exercise of social power.


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Sep 7, 2013)

How was it ever deemed a genetic defect?How do you know that it isnt one of natures processes for species preservation by more or less regulating the populating human species?What causes people to be gay?Exposure to sexual hormones while in the womb during critical periods of brain developement has been known to later influence sexual orientation.Why dose one assume it to be a defect in genetics when it very well may not be a defect in genetics whatsoever>?Homosexuality could very well be another form of natural selection,,,would that seem to be to far fetched?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Let&#8217;s ignore the rest of your rant for now.
> 
> If not a genetic defect, then what cause people to be gay?
> 
> ...


This appears to be a version of the "gaps" argument, which is a very common tactic for those defending pseudoscience and nonsense. The idea is that because there exists a gap in our knowledge that it somehow becomes okay to fill it with your pet idea. What you need is actual support for your idea, not just a lack of competing explanation. The problem here is that actual geneticists do not take the same position. People who understand genetic defects far better than you or I ever will still consider it a mystery, which conflicts with your attitude that genetic defect is a forgone conclusion. Genetics obviously play a part, but to say homosexuality is a defect is to grossly oversimplify the evidence.

"J.B.S. Haldane, one of the giants of evolutionary theory, imagined two alternative genes, one initially found in 99.9 percent of a population and the other in just 0.1 percent. He then calculated that if the rare gene had merely a 1-percent advantage (it produced 101 descendants each generation to the abundant gene's 100), in just 4,000 generations&#8212;a mere instant in evolutionary terms&#8212;the situation would be reversed, with the formerly rare gene occurring in 99.9 percent of the population's genetic pool. Such is the power of compound interest, acting via natural selection.

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Evolutionary-Mystery-of/135762/"


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 8, 2013)

Grojak said:


> See man you're not part of a solution, you're part of a problem!!! Genetic defect, who are you to say there is a genetic defect? Peruvian tribes deep in the jungle are for the most part bisexual, they bond with men and have gay acts with them while also having a wife. In a society far from "civilized world" and primitive as could be their bi sexual (lets not forget the romans and their butt sex). Gay is not a defect is natural and occurs far more often than is recognized because of people like you who see it as a DEFECT!!
> 
> You're answer is a backhanded acceptance... "Oh I except you for being defective", what the shit is that about? How many people get pregnant by accident or how many people have babies that should not are you glad when a 16 year old gets pregnant? I know plenty of straight people that are beyond baby making years and never had one are they as defective as gays? There are plenty of idiots having kids, too many kids for a million gays to affect our society by not reproducing... and hell those DEFECTIVE fuckers adopt that 16 year olds unwanted child, what awful people!!
> 
> Until People like you and to a higher level the truly intolerant change their tunes children will continue to be molested by men/women who are in the public eye "straight". Look at Penn State, you had a man of high power married with kids but a closet gay but because of our intolerant society he just can't be openly gay so he preyed on the young and weak no doubt black mailing them to stay quiet... this worked for 20 years. I'm not saying if everyone excepted gay/bisexuals this wouldn't happen, I am saying if everyone excepted gay/bisexuals it would happen LESS because people would just be open to say "Hey I love my wife and my family but sometimes I like to smoke a little pole" That is something marriage counseling and the couple can work out but it's not for the church or radicals to figure out for them!!


Hmmm your as bad a part of the problem if not worse if your comparing paedophile cunts like Sandusky to "closet gays"


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Simple evolutionary advantage. The better-bonded tribes have a bigger stake in making it. It is the Creationist simplistic overlay to posit that sex is only for reproduction. Sex is the directest diplomacy, the exercise of social power.


 
Thanks for the laugh.

I did not know that gays bonded better than heterosexuals.

So to you, not having the desire to reproduce in it&#8217;s members,something that would cause the species to go extinct, is a benefit to survival.

Let us see your argument for your view please.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> How was it ever deemed a genetic defect?How do you know that it isnt one of natures processes for species preservation by more or less regulating the populating human species?What causes people to be gay?Exposure to sexual hormones while in the womb during critical periods of brain developement has been known to later influence sexual orientation.Why dose one assume it to be a defect in genetics when it very well may not be a defect in genetics whatsoever>?Homosexuality could very well be another form of natural selection,,,would that seem to be to far fetched?


 
Yes as they are selected not to reproduce. Something that all who wish to pass on their genetics do. IOW, all living creatures. 

Strange that you would blame chemistry and defects in genetics, which is the same as a DNA defect, more or less, yet do not accept that it is a DNA defect.

Regards
DL


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Thanks for the laugh.
> 
> I did not know that gays bonded better than heterosexuals.
> 
> ...


Bolded part is wrong humans are not going extinct due to homosexuality 

Your also making the mistake that any changes in DNA have to be beneficial.


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> This appears to be a version of the "gaps" argument, which is a very common tactic for those defending pseudoscience and nonsense. The idea is that because there exists a gap in our knowledge that it somehow becomes okay to fill it with your pet idea. What you need is actual support for your idea, not just a lack of competing explanation. The problem here is that actual geneticists do not take the same position. People who understand genetic defects far better than you or I ever will still consider it a mystery, which conflicts with your attitude that genetic defect is a forgone conclusion. Genetics obviously play a part, but to say homosexuality is a defect is to grossly oversimplify the evidence./"


 
If genetics play a part then DNA is also and as the controllerof what the entities genetics will be, controls, with it&#8217;s defective DNA whetherthe entity will be gay or not. If gay, in a species that need sex between thesexes to propagate itself, then that DNA line will die out.

You say I use DNA defect as my God of the Gaps. I will giveyou that. Do you have something better for me to put in that Gap?

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

> ginjawarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Bolded part is wrong humans are not going extinct due to homosexuality
> ...



I was indicating exactly that my friend. That change to gayness is not a benefit.

Regards
DL


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> I was indicating exactly that my friend. That change to gayness is not a benefit.
> 
> Regards
> DL


No you were calling it a defect as in something wrong 




> a new study, published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, found a correlation between gay men and their mothers and maternal aunts, who are prone to have significantly more children compared to the maternal relatives of straight men.Researchers led by Andrea Camperio Ciani, from the University of Padova in Italy, say that the findings of the link between homosexuality and female fertility strongly support the "balancing selection hypothesis," which suggests that a gene which causes homosexuality also leads to high fecundity or reproduction among their female relatives.
> The team noted that the "gay man gene" may not get passed down directly, but instead survive through the generations through future generations making their male inheritors gay



http://www.medicaldaily.com/gay-gene-survived-evolution-it-carried-mothers-who-have-more-children-study-240813

»


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> No you were calling it a defect as in something wrong
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Interesting. I will have to do some reading.

As to calling it a defect. I will continue to do so as in aspecies like ours, if too many had that defect, we would go extinct.

Regards
DL


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Interesting. I will have to do some reading.
> 
> As to calling it a defect. I will continue to do so as in aspecies like ours, if too many had that defect, we would go extinct.
> 
> ...


no you'll continue saying it because your a bigot not because of any higher reasoning like you claim


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> If genetics play a part then DNA is also and as the controllerof what the entities genetics will be, controls, with it&#8217;s defective DNA whetherthe entity will be gay or not. If gay, in a species that need sex between thesexes to propagate itself, then that DNA line will die out.


I suppose you will have to define the term "defect". Homosexuality is a difference, and one that evolution doesn't seem to mind considering that it has been preserved rather than filtered out. You apparently did not read the article which would suggest that when it comes to having an informed opinion, you are not so great.




> Do you have something better for me to put in that Gap?


Humility and a true reflection of the state of the evidence coupled with cogent reasoning and the willingness to say "I don't know" rather than "i'll turn to my presupposed ideology."


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> I suppose you will have to define the term "defect". Homosexuality is a difference, and one that evolution doesn't seem to mind considering that it has been preserved rather than filtered out. You apparently did not read the article which would suggest that when it comes to having an informed opinion, you are not so great.
> 
> 
> 
> Humility and a true reflection of the state of the evidence coupled with cogent reasoning and the willingness to say "I don't know" rather than "i'll turn to my presupposed ideology."


 
Life creates for the best possible end for a species. Notfor the least possible end. It always does as good as it can, giventhe DNA and other conditions at hand.

In a reproducing species like man, being gay is not a bestpossible end.

The reason that evolution has not bread that out is becauseit is a defect in the DNA that it cannot prevent. There is no gay gene to weedout.

If science shows that it is a part of our DNA for thebenefits shown in that article, then I will move to that POV. 

Regards
DL


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Life creates for the best possible end for a species.



No 


> Notfor the least possible end. It always does as good as it can, giventhe DNA and other conditions at hand.


No


> In a reproducing species like man, being gay is not a bestpossible end.


No


> The reason that evolution has not bread that out is becauseit is a defect in the DNA that it cannot prevent. There is no gay gene to weedout.



No

I like how you think its in DNA but not genes...



> If science shows that it is a part of our DNA for thebenefits shown in that article, then I will move to that POV.
> 
> Regards
> DL


I doubt that very much


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Life creates for the best possible end for a species. Notfor the least possible end. It always does as good as it can, giventhe DNA and other conditions at hand.


 This is not an argument, it's an assertion, and one that doesn't seem to be backed up with any sort of data. As such, it requires no refutation, only a contradiction. Life does not create for the best possible end for a species. 



> In a reproducing species like man, being gay is not a bestpossible end.


Whether being gay is the best possible situation or not is irrelevant considering that this depends on your previous flawed assertion to make any sense. 



> The reason that evolution has not bread that out is becauseit is a defect in the DNA that it cannot prevent. There is no gay gene to weedout.


Ah so the problem isn't in our genetics, it's in our genes. If this is the best you can muster to explain your position then I would have to guess that you have never really taken the time to deeply think about your position before. You have made intuitive guesses informed by your limited understanding without regard to the idea that just because it makes sense to you and jives with your worldview, it may not reflect the science.


----------



## sunni (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Lets ignore the rest of your rant for now.
> 
> If not a genetic defect, then what cause people to be gay?
> 
> ...


i have nothing to said either than i dont like you. welcome to riu though


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

To think that placing non-reproduction in a system that requires reproduction to sustain itself is the best of all out comes for that' species is quite foolish. It would go extinct if widespread. DNA works by switches being turned on or off. To turn off the reproduction switch is definitely not the best possible end.

Regards 
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

sunni said:


> i have nothing to said either than i dont like you. welcome to riu though


I will grow on you. Regards DL


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> To think that placing non-reproduction in a system that requires reproduction to sustain itself is the best of all out comes for that' species is quite foolish. It would go extinct if widespread. DNA works by switches being turned on or off. To turn off the reproduction switch is definitely not the best possible end.
> 
> Regards
> DL


No

10 charaters


----------



## sunni (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> I will grow on you. Regards DL


 no most likely not , especially the with the way you talk about people like my mother.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> To think that placing non-reproduction in a system that requires reproduction to sustain itself is the best of all out comes for that' species is quite foolish. It would go extinct if widespread. DNA works by switches being turned on or off. To turn off the reproduction switch is definitely not the best possible end.
> 
> Regards
> DL


You are explaining only that you do not understand evolution, genetics, or homosexuality. You are confusing being informed with being opinionated.


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

sunni said:


> no most likely not , especially the with the way you talk about people like my mother.


 
Prove me wrong. Don&#8217;t get mad. Get even.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> You are explaining only that you do not understand evolution, genetics, or homosexuality. You are confusing being informed with being opinionated.


 
It seems that I have arguments and a logic trail for myopinion.

All I get back is denial without argument or some other logictrail.

Regards
DL


----------



## sunni (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Prove me wrong. Don&#8217;t get mad. Get even.
> 
> Regards
> DL


im what way did i demonstrate anger to you? i did not. i just said i will most likely be not having you "grow on me" because and than i stated my reason.

there is no point in changing someones mind who doesnt want to be change which is what you have already proven


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> It seems that I have arguments and a logic trail for myopinion.
> 
> All I get back is denial without argument or some other logictrail.
> 
> ...


Your premise is wrong meaning your arguments are wrong too

As long as change in DNA doesn't kill then it can carry on in species it doesn't have to be the best possible it just has to not kill 

the gene is passed down the mother's side (who also seems to have more kids) so homosexuals don't need to breed to pass it on and also means there's no danger of extinction



Many people live their lives without ever breeding do you call them "defective" too?


----------



## joe macclennan (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> As to calling it a defect. I will continue to do so as in aspecies like ours, if too many had that defect, we would go extinct.



how foolish of you to allude that homosexuality would become so prevalent as to cause a world population of some Seven Billion people to go extinct. 

your barely disguised homophobia is showing


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

sunni said:


> im what way did i demonstrate anger to you? i did not. i just said i will most likely be not having you "grow on me" because and than i stated my reason.
> 
> there is no point in changing someones mind who doesnt want to be change which is what you have already proven


 
So people argue to have their minds changed. Ok.

If you only tackle people who want to change their minds, thenyou are a hindrance to your mother and not a help.

Regards
DL


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> It seems that I have arguments and a logic trail for myopinion.
> 
> All I get back is denial without argument or some other logictrail.
> 
> ...


You apparently do not understand the terms "argument" and "logic". Nothing you have said makes any sense except in the light of you being clueless and filling in the blanks with your inane suppositions. Science does not support what you say, it is up to you to prove your assertions. 


&#8220;Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them" &#8213; Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Your premise is wrong meaning your arguments are wrong too
> 
> As long as change in DNA doesn't kill then it can carry on in species it doesn't have to be the best possible it just has to not kill
> 
> ...


 
 In natural animal terms for an entity that must reproduce tosustain it&#8217;s species, yes.
If we were all of that ilk we would go extinct.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Your premise is wrong meaning your arguments are wrong too
> 
> As long as change in DNA doesn't kill then it can carry on in species it doesn't have to be the best possible it just has to not kill
> 
> ...


 
In natural animal terms for an entity that must reproduce tosustain it&#8217;s species, yes.
If we were all of that ilk we would go extinct.

Regards
DL


----------



## sunni (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> So people argue to have their minds changed. Ok.
> 
> If you only tackle people who want to change their minds, thenyou are a *hindrance to your mother and not a help.*
> 
> ...


wow buddy id watch how you speak to people


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> how foolish of you to allude that homosexuality would become so prevalent as to cause a world population of some Seven Billion people to go extinct.
> 
> your barely disguised homophobia is showing


 
Thanks for the B. S. instead of an argument against thepremise.

I did not elude any such thing.

Any and all arguments should have their logic reinforced bytaking the premise to infinity.

I am a strong advocate of gay rights but that does not mean thatI have to take some unrealistic position on what gays are or how they come tobe.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> You apparently do not understand the terms "argument" and "logic". Nothing you have said makes any sense except in the light of you being clueless and filling in the blanks with your inane suppositions. Science does not support what you say, it is up to you to prove your assertions.


 
B.S. seems to be all you are good for in this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

Note how they speak of genes and genetics, brain structureand chemical influences.

These are all DNA related. What in hell do you think makesup genes if not DNA?

Notice the logic trail?
Lets see yours for whatever you attribute gayness to.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

sunni said:


> wow buddy id watch how you speak to people


 
Content is more important than tone and I call things as Isee them.

Would you prefer I lied to you?

Regards
DL


----------



## beuffer420 (Sep 8, 2013)

Jungle book why you trying to stir shit up?


----------



## sunni (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Content is more important than tone and I call things as Isee them.
> 
> Would you prefer I lied to you?
> 
> ...


youre rude man, just rude we are people we all have feelings, to say that is astounding you could be so rude to someone.
I highly doubt you'll last long here.


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

beuffer420 said:


> Jungle book why you trying to stir shit up?


Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events;small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Regards
DL


----------



## joe macclennan (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Thanks for the B. S. instead of an argument against thepremise.


No bs simply an opinion. This is ok right? 




Greatest I am said:


> I did not elude any such thing.


It was allude, Not elude. 
*e·lude*(




-l




d




)_tr.v._ *e·lud·ed*, *e·lud·ing*, *e·ludes**1. *To evade or escape from, as by daring, cleverness, or skill: 

*al·lude* (




-l




d




)_intr.v._ *al·lud·ed*, *al·lud·ing*, *al·ludes*To make an indirect reference:


you post as if you are somewhat intelligent. At least try and use your words correctly.



Greatest I am said:


> Any and all arguments should have their logic reinforced bytaking the premise to infinity


Did I reinforce my logic appropriately enough for you there?


Greatest I am said:


> I am a strong advocate of gay rights but that does not mean thatI have to take some unrealistic position on what gays are or how they come tobe.


This is exceedingly obvious by your posts in this entire thread. 

regards,
joe 




sunni said:


> wow buddy id watch how you speak to people


I wonder who this guy was in a former life. I have a feeling he has been reincarnated.


----------



## beuffer420 (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events;small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt
> 
> Regards
> DL


For your mind has got to be the smallest I have encountered then


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> In natural animal terms for an entity that must reproduce tosustain it&#8217;s species, yes.
> If we were all of that ilk we would go extinct.
> 
> Regards
> DL


Oh I see your argument only works if everybody is gay...

reality disagrees with you, not everyone is gay and guess what there is 7 billion people on this planet and rising


----------



## beuffer420 (Sep 8, 2013)

Oh regards

beuffer420


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 8, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Oh I see your argument only works if everybody is gay...
> 
> reality disagrees with you, not everyone is gay and guess what there is 7 billion people on this planet and rising


Seems you missed this above.

Any and all arguments should have their logic reinforced by takingthe premise to infinity.

Regards
DL


----------



## beuffer420 (Sep 8, 2013)

Don't think I missed much at all. All I see is you arguing with every PERSON who posts. That's cool though your making friends real quick keep it up.

reguards 

b420


----------



## joe macclennan (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Seems you missed this above.


seems you are ignoring my post



Greatest I am said:


> Any and all arguments should have their logic reinforced by takingthe premise to infinity.


well I know it is important to us that we strive to meet your criteria as stated above^^

Q: who comes into a growing website and seeks the s&s forum and makes their first twenty posts in a thread on homosexuality?


A: a troll, that's who.



oh shit! EDIT: 

regards, 

joe


----------



## beuffer420 (Sep 8, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> seems you are ignoring my post
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well put sir! You must spread some reputation before giving it to joe again!


----------



## joe macclennan (Sep 8, 2013)

beuffer420 said:


> Well put sir! You must spread some reputation before giving it to joe again!


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> B.S. seems to be all you are good for in this issue.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
> 
> ...


From your link, "A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated". If you can't comprehend your own link, why would I believe anything I could say would get through?

The skills needed to put forth a logical argument are the same one needed to recognize a logical argument. 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

[youtube]XyOHJa5Vj5Y[/youtube]


* The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool. *


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Yes as they are selected not to reproduce. Something that all who wish to pass on their genetics do. IOW, all living creatures.
> 
> Strange that you would blame chemistry and defects in genetics, which is the same as a DNA defect, more or less, yet do not accept that it is a DNA defect
> 
> ...


I assign no blame to genetics or DNA for homosexuality in the human race,YOU do.You assert your own opinion in the answer.I merely asked a few pertainent questions with one assertion that I view as a possibility to later Homosexual tendency's in ones life.You never mentioned how it could be a true defect of DNA nor mentioned any sources of information that correlates your assertions.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> To think that placing non-reproduction in a system that requires reproduction to sustain itself is the best of all out comes for that' species is quite foolish. It would go extinct if widespread. DNA works by switches being turned on or off. To turn off the reproduction switch is definitely not the best possible end.
> 
> Regards
> DL


Damned if it isn't straight parents having all these gay babies....


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 8, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Thanks for the laugh.
> 
> I did not know that gays bonded better than heterosexuals.
> 
> ...


To what possible effect?

Look what you did. You replaced my argument with a completely different one wearing a clown suit. Then you went ahead as though the two were the same.

When you are willing to be honest, i am willing to engage. But under these conditions, where you are waiting to fit all comers with clown suits, forget it.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 8, 2013)

I prefer blowjobs from, and anal sex with, women. When I participate in any sex (except BJs) I wear condoms. None of these acts lead to reproduction. Therefor, do I possess defective genes?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 9, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Thanks for the laugh.
> 
> I did not know that gays bonded better than heterosexuals.
> 
> ...


Homosexuality is finding the same sex attractive. It doesn't mean you don't want to have kids. The only way your argument works is if being gay killed all desire to be a parent, which it demonstrably doesn't. Hence, all the gay parents raising their own children.


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 9, 2013)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> I assign no blame to genetics or DNA for homosexuality in the human race,YOU do.You assert your own opinion in the answer.I merely asked a few pertainent questions with one assertion that I view as a possibility to later Homosexual tendency's in ones life.You never mentioned how it could be a true defect of DNA nor mentioned any sources of information that correlates your assertions.


 
 Does healthynon-defective human DNA produce people who will faithfully reproduce as allanimal life does, given the opportunity, with their non-defective DNA?

Yes it does.

Therefor defective DNA will produce humans who will not orcannot.

If DNA does not control if one is gay or not then whatdoes?

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 9, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Damned if it isn't straight parents having all these gay babies....


 
Exactly. 
Showing that the defect comes into play in the womb throughDNA. We are what our DNA produces.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 9, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Homosexuality is finding the same sex attractive. It doesn't mean you don't want to have kids. The only way your argument works is if being gay killed all desire to be a parent, which it demonstrably doesn't. Hence, all the gay parents raising their own children.


 
Gay parents raise their own children!
Wow.
How do they reproduce with their own gender?

Regards
DL


----------



## joe macclennan (Sep 9, 2013)

Just curious, what evidence do you have to qualify your claim of homosexuals having defective dna?

or is this just an opinion of yours?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 9, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Gay parents raise their own children!
> Wow.
> How do they reproduce with their own gender?
> 
> ...


They don't. If it's two gay men that want to be parents, they choose one or both, of their sperm and a donor egg and raise the child/children. If it's two women, they take donor sperm and one of them mothers the child, then they both raise the child/children. 

Again, being attracted to the same sex doesn't stifle your desire to be a parent, it just changes who you raise your child with. Gay people even have straight sex just to have babies, MY GOODNESS, the nerve, right?


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 9, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> Just curious, what evidence do you have to qualify your claim of homosexuals having defective dna?
> 
> or is this just an opinion of yours?


 
The lack of another option and reason.

You will note that no one has offered any other remotelyviable source for gayness.

Some have offered that it is natural but nature will notproduce non-reproducing genetics in a species that sustains itself with reproducingDNA if it can help it.

I understand why people do not like the idea of labellinggayness as a defect in DNA but they have no other cause to point to.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 9, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> They don't. If it's two gay men that want to be parents, they choose one or both, of their sperm and a donor egg and raise the child/children. If it's two women, they take donor sperm and one of them mothers the child, then they both raise the child/children.
> 
> Again, being attracted to the same sex doesn't stifle your desire to be a parent, it just changes who you raise your child with. Gay people even have straight sex just to have babies, MY GOODNESS, the nerve, right?


 
You make half my point and kill half of yours.

Only half, unless both parties find a surrogate, willreproduce and it is not a reproduction based on love. 

Let us hope that we never find non-human surrogates.

Regards
DL


----------



## joe macclennan (Sep 9, 2013)

this is not evidence. Simply an opinion. So Theory would more accurately describe what you are posting.

I am asking for direct evidence to back your claims of dna being defective in homosexual individuals.

not opinion or theory.


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 9, 2013)

joe macclennan said:


> this is not evidence. Simply an opinion. So Theory would more accurately describe what you are posting.
> 
> I am asking for direct evidence to back your claims of dna being defective in homosexual individuals.
> 
> not opinion or theory.


 
I gave a wiki page showing that science points to conditionsor cause that all have to do with DNA. 

The only other cause that has had any air time is nurtureand that has been debunked.

If nature is the cause, and I think it is, it is in causinga defect in the DNA.

What other natural condition would ever place such acondition in a species that reproduces thanks to the attraction of the oppositesex?

No positive one.

And yes. Until the actual mechanism is discovered, mineremains just opinion and theory but you will note that it is the best that hasbeen offered so far here.

I am quite willing to be corrected but no one is offering abetter alternative. 

Regards
DL


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 9, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> You make half my point and kill half of yours.
> 
> Only half, unless both parties find a surrogate, willreproduce* and it is not a reproduction based on love. *
> 
> ...


Non-sequitur much? Your incoherent points don't lead anywhere. Love has nothing to do with reproduction in the strictest sense. 

Your argument rests on the premise that gay people don't procreate therefore, it's unnatural and a 'defect'. If gay people were born without the ability to reproduce, you could call it a defect. Since they're completely capable, and do very frequently procreate, there's no reason to label their preference of companionship as a defect. 

There's nothing being _inhibited _by being gay or lesbian so _how _does it logically follow that being attracted to someone of the same sex makes you defective?

What crazy non-human surrogate future is your bigoted mind dreaming up now? One where gay people don't have to go through the troubles of finding a surrogate? Oh the chaos! How will humanity survive???


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 9, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> I gave a wiki page showing that science points to conditionsor cause that all have to do with DNA.
> 
> The only other cause that has had any air time is nurtureand that has been debunked.
> 
> ...


You're just calling something _different _a _defect _with no understanding of what a genetic defect is beyond that of copy and pasting a wiki page.

You're a laymen attempting to discuss DNA, and failing miserably.


----------



## Nice Ol Bud (Sep 9, 2013)

What can I say... nothing...
Isn't this like... awesome? Christians finally turning around.

I like his "New testament"...


----------



## Nice Ol Bud (Sep 9, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Non-sequitur much? Your incoherent points don't lead anywhere. Love has nothing to do with reproduction in the strictest sense.
> 
> Your argument rests on the premise that gay people don't procreate therefore, it's unnatural and a 'defect'. If gay people were born without the ability to reproduce, you could call it a defect. Since they're completely capable, and do very frequently procreate, there's no reason to label their preference of companionship as a defect.
> 
> ...


It all doesn't matter...
In 50 years anyways all of us are going to have a dick and a pussy from the radioactive and chemical warfare..


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 9, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Non-sequitur much? Your incoherent points don't lead anywhere. Love has nothing to do with reproduction in the strictest sense.
> 
> Your argument rests on the premise that gay people don't procreate therefore, it's unnatural and a 'defect'. If gay people were born without the ability to reproduce, you could call it a defect. Since they're completely capable, and do very frequently procreate, there's no reason to label their preference of companionship as a defect.
> 
> ...


 
"Your argument rests on the premise that gay peopledon't procreate".

Not exactly. My argument is based on the fact that they areattracted to those they cannot reproduce with and left alone or if no surrogateis available, they would not likely reproduce at all.

Their sperm and eggs are fine. It is the desire of the deliverysystem that is screwed up.

Regards
DL


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Sep 9, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Does healthynon-defective human DNA produce people who will faithfully reproduce as allanimal life does, given the opportunity, with their non-defective DNA?
> 
> Yes it does.
> 
> ...


----------



## JonnyAppleSeed420 (Sep 9, 2013)

I have no issues what others do in their own time but honestly what if we were all gay? Think about it for a minute...not a natural selection...its a choice IMHO. _JAS_


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Sep 9, 2013)

well,,while you are entitled to your opinion,,I disagree with it.I dont think that it is simply a"choice".My favorite brand of rootbeer,the clothes I wear,the music I listen to ,,,those are choices.Do you think that a homosexual can simply choose to be not gay?If so then I would like to see your explaination,,


----------



## Wilksey (Sep 9, 2013)

Being born without arms or legs is a "natural condition" as well, but that doesn't mean it's "right".


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 9, 2013)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> Greatest I am said:
> 
> 
> > Does healthynon-defective human DNA produce people who will faithfully reproduce as allanimal life does, given the opportunity, with their non-defective DNA?
> ...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 9, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> "Your argument rests on the premise that gay peopledon't procreate".
> 
> Not exactly. My argument is based on the fact that they areattracted to those they cannot reproduce with and left alone or if no surrogateis available, they would not likely reproduce at all.
> 
> ...


You are confusing sexual desires with desire to reproduce. If your thesis were correct, homosexual mammals would have gone extinct long ago. They haven't, therefore you're incorrect in your reasoning. It's fairly simple.

Certainly, we would notice a decline in homosexuality VIA natural selection if it weren't in some way beneficial. You're only looking at the cost benefit analysis of the reproduction of a species when there could be countless beneficial factors also derived from homosexuality that you are purposefully (or ignorantly) leaving out of your argument. 

Many, MANY, cultures have revered homosexuality in various forms; it added to their culture and society. Look at homosexuality in some Native American tribes. Men were assigned 'women-like' duties, and were expected to be leaders of the women. They raised children, and helped do the incredibly difficult work that Native American women performed on a daily basis. A perfect fit in their society, which would certainly be at a loss without the benefit of these homosexuals. 

So, despite your statements, it seems homosexuality does serve a purpose or the trait would have been lost along the ages....


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 9, 2013)

> Beefbisquit said:
> 
> 
> > You are confusing sexual desires with desire to reproduce. If your thesis were correct, homosexual mammals would have gone extinct long ago. They haven't, therefore you're incorrect in your reasoning. It's fairly simple.
> ...


 
Quite the reach here my friend.

Those gays were put with the women because the men werelikely uncomfortable with them.

Regards
DL


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Sep 9, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Dislexicmidget2021 said:
> 
> 
> > Good info.
> ...


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 9, 2013)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> Greatest I am said:
> 
> 
> > We know from studying rats that exposure to sex hormones in the womb during a critical period in brain development affects future sexual orientation. By manipulating hormone levels during this time, scientists can make rats engage in homosexual behavior later on.
> ...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 9, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Quite the reach here my friend.
> 
> Those gays were put with the women because the men werelikely uncomfortable with them.
> 
> ...


Who's reaching now? They were 'uncomfortable with them'? How could you possibly know that? 

Maybe if you actually read up on it, instead of guessing you wouldn't need to reach beyond your means.

Maybe you should look up 'two-spirit' people, or 'berdaches'.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 9, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> *How is the survivability of a species that depends onreproduction enhanced by having members who will not reproduce?*
> 
> It obviously is not.
> 
> ...


You're creating a false dichotomy when there are many factors that contribute to the sustainability of a species, not just strictly reproduction. 

A very small percentage of drugs cause birth defects. Most drugs don't affect DNA at all. They create inhibitory or excitatory electro-chemical responses in your brain which alters your body's chemistry; but not your actual DNA.


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Sep 9, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Dislexicmidget2021 said:
> 
> 
> > Lol what in the hell happened to My quote having my name it .Im seeing your Screen name in my quote with your reply.Post #96


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 9, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Who's reaching now? They were 'uncomfortable with them'? How could you possibly know that?
> 
> Maybe if you actually read up on it, instead of guessing you wouldn't need to reach beyond your means.
> 
> Maybe you should look up 'two-spirit' people, or 'berdaches'.


Oh I do not doubt that the odd tribe might do as you say butif we look at world history, gays have generally been ostracized by societiesespecially where the Abrahamic cults ruled. Hell, they even hated women back inthe day.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 9, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> You're creating a false dichotomy when there are many factors that contribute to the sustainability of a species, not just strictly reproduction.
> 
> A very small percentage of drugs cause birth defects. Most drugs don't affect DNA at all. They create inhibitory or excitatory electro-chemical responses in your brain which alters your body's chemistry; but not your actual DNA.


 
I know it is not only reproduction but that is key to thesurvival of any species.

You are likely right about some medicines not reaching theDNA. Some may not have to, to do their job but when you are talking aboutaltering the body chemistry then I would think that most drugs go into our DNA.

From what I have seen of modern medicine, it looks like theywill be targeting the DNA much more in the future.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 9, 2013)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> Greatest I am said:
> 
> 
> > Dislexicmidget2021 said:
> ...


----------



## Grojak (Sep 9, 2013)

If gay is a genetic defect, how does that explain bisexuality... wait I know... split genes? 

LOL As I stated before for thousands of years men and women have been having good times with both sexes, just look at Craigslist plenty of married men looking to enjoy a man, lesser the amount of women but that could be due to the fact that they don't have to do it in secret, men LOVE watching another woman with theirs, especially if they can join. 

I am sorry that you're sexual experiences must be limited to the 2 or 3 times you had it to create a kid, fuck man I'd go insane and be fucking watermelons if that were the case for me. * Be safe, wrap it up, use a dental damn if you need to but GO enjoy SEX, with whomever, whenever, wherever you want!!!
*
Sex is awesome and should be had be all as often as possible, hell get it where you can!! If you're traveling and some dude offers you an old fashion hell who's gonna know, surely it would feel better than your old righty or lefty, Greatest is it not?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 9, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> I know it is not only reproduction but that is key to thesurvival of any species.
> 
> You are likely right about some medicines not reaching theDNA. Some may not have to, to do their job but when you are talking aboutaltering the body chemistry then I would think that most drugs go into our DNA.
> 
> ...


See, the great thing about science is it's true whether you believe it or not. In this case, I'm correct. 

Drugs, other than chemotherapy drugs and a few others that _do_ actually damage DNA, act on proteins not on DNA.

http://bit.ly/19Cb1uO


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 10, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> See, the great thing about science is it's true whether you believe it or not. In this case, I'm correct.
> 
> Drugs, other than chemotherapy drugs and a few others that _do_ actually damage DNA, act on proteins not on DNA.
> 
> http://bit.ly/19Cb1uO


 
I agree and already stated that some drugs do and some not.

This does not take away the fact that gayness is in thegenes and that it is defective DNA that causes the genes to act as they do.

I am not married to this notion but see no other cause forgayness and no one has given me anything to kill the logic trail I set.

If heterosexual are normal and following their genes and DNA,then gays are also normal and following their genes and DNA. There DNA in termsof keeping the species going just happens to be defective towards that end.

Regards
DL


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 10, 2013)

Bigots always have a reason for supporting their perspective. They always attempt to sound as if they are understanding with an open mind. Yet even when presented with evidence they never are willing to change their minds. They always have an excuse to justify their backwards position and that excuse is always impenetrable in their minds. Never does it occure to them that they could be misinformed and inexperienced. They will continue to shit into their own hand and rub it into their hair while laughing at you for not doing the same. You can expect nothing more from a bigot.


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Sep 10, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Dislexicmidget2021 said:
> 
> 
> > How is the survivability of a species that depends onreproduction enhanced by having members who will not reproduce?
> ...


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 10, 2013)

Nature preserves homosexuality not only in humans, but in hundreds of other species, as well - 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Here are the mammals, click my link above to see the full list of reptiles, fish and even insects...


[h=2]Mammals[/h] 
 

African Buffalo[SUP][21][/SUP]
African Elephant[SUP][22][/SUP]
Agile Wallaby[SUP][23][/SUP]
Amazon River Dolphin(Boto)[SUP][19][/SUP]
American Bison[SUP][21][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP]
Antelope[SUP][25][/SUP]
Asian Elephant[SUP][22][/SUP]
Asiatic Lion[SUP][26][/SUP]
Asiatic Mouflon[SUP][27][/SUP]
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin[SUP][19][/SUP]
Australian Sea Lion[SUP][28][/SUP]
Barasingha[SUP][29][/SUP]
Barbary Sheep[SUP][30][/SUP]
Beluga[SUP][19][/SUP]
Bharal[SUP][31][/SUP]
Bighorn Sheep[SUP][30][/SUP]
Black Bear[SUP][32][/SUP]
Blackbuck[SUP][33][/SUP]
Black-footed Rock Wallaby[SUP][23][/SUP]
Black-tailed Deer[SUP][29][/SUP]
Bonnet Macaque[SUP][14][/SUP]
Bonobo[SUP][34][/SUP][SUP][35][/SUP][SUP][36][/SUP]
Bottlenose Dolphin[SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][37][/SUP]
Bowhead Whale[SUP][19][/SUP]
Brazilian Guinea Pig[SUP][38][/SUP]
Bridled Dolphin[SUP][19][/SUP]
Brown Bear[SUP][32][/SUP]
Brown Capuchin[SUP][39][/SUP]
Brown Long-eared Bat[SUP][40][/SUP]
Brown Rat[SUP][41][/SUP]
Buffalo[SUP][30][/SUP]
Caribou[SUP][42][/SUP]
Cat (domestic)[SUP][43][/SUP]
Cattle (domestic)[SUP][44][/SUP]
Cheetah[SUP][26][/SUP]
Collared Peccary[SUP][45][/SUP]
Commerson's Dolphin[SUP][19][/SUP]
Common Brushtail Possum[SUP][46][/SUP]
Common Chimpanzee[SUP][47][/SUP]
Common Dolphin[SUP][19][/SUP]
Common Marmoset[SUP][39][/SUP]
Common Pipistrelle[SUP][48][/SUP]
Common Raccoon[SUP][49][/SUP]
Common Tree Shrew[SUP][50][/SUP]
Cotton-top Tamarin[SUP][51][/SUP]
Crab-eating Macaque[SUP][14][/SUP]
Crested Black Macaque[SUP][14][/SUP]
Dall's Sheep[SUP][30][/SUP]
Daubenton's Bat[SUP][40][/SUP]
Dog (domestic)[SUP][52][/SUP]
Donkey
Doria's Tree Kangaroo[SUP][23][/SUP]
Dugong[SUP][53][/SUP]
Dwarf Cavy[SUP][38][/SUP]
Dwarf Mongoose[SUP][54][/SUP]
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit[SUP][41][/SUP]
Eastern Grey Kangaroo[SUP][23][/SUP]
Elk[SUP][29][/SUP]
Euro (a subspecies of wallaroo)[SUP][23][/SUP]
European Bison[SUP][21][/SUP]
Fallow Deer[SUP][29][/SUP]
False Killer Whale[SUP][19][/SUP]
Fat-tailed Dunnart[SUP][55][/SUP]
Fin Whale[SUP][19][/SUP]
Fox[SUP][56][/SUP]
Gazelle[SUP][25][/SUP]
Gelada Baboon[SUP][57][/SUP]
Giraffe[SUP][25][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][58][/SUP]
Goat (Domestic)[SUP][30][/SUP]
Golden Monkey[SUP][59][/SUP]
Gorilla[SUP][60][/SUP]
 
 

Grant's Gazelle[SUP][25][/SUP]
Grey-headed Flying Fox[SUP][40][/SUP]
Grey Seal[SUP][28][/SUP]
Grey squirrel[SUP][61][/SUP]
Grey Whale[SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP]
Grey Wolf[SUP][62][/SUP]
Grizzly Bear[SUP][32][/SUP]
Guinea Pig (Domestic)[SUP][38][/SUP]
Hamadryas Baboon[SUP][57][/SUP]
Hamster (Domestic)[SUP][38][/SUP]
Hanuman Langur[SUP][63][/SUP]
Harbor Porpoise[SUP][64][/SUP]
Harbor Seal[SUP][28][/SUP]
Himalayan Tahr[SUP][65][/SUP]
Hoary Marmot[SUP][66][/SUP]
Horse (domestic)[SUP][67][/SUP]
Human (see Human sexual behavior)
Indian Fruit Bat[SUP][40][/SUP]
Indian Muntjac[SUP][68][/SUP]
Indian Rhinoceros[SUP][69][/SUP]
Japanese Macaque[SUP][14][/SUP]
Javelina[SUP][70][/SUP]
Kangaroo Rat[SUP][41][/SUP]
Killer Whale[SUP][19][/SUP]
Koala[SUP][71][/SUP]
Kob[SUP][15][/SUP][SUP][72][/SUP]
Larga Seal[SUP][28][/SUP]
Least Chipmunk[SUP][61][/SUP]
Lechwe[SUP][72][/SUP]
Lesser Bushbaby[SUP][73][/SUP]
Lion[SUP][26][/SUP][SUP][74][/SUP][SUP][75][/SUP][SUP][76][/SUP][SUP][77][/SUP][SUP][78][/SUP]
Lion-tailed Macaque[SUP][14][/SUP]
Lion Tamarin[SUP][39][/SUP]
Little Brown Bat[SUP][40][/SUP]
Livingstone's Fruit Bat[SUP][40][/SUP]
Long-eared Hedgehog[SUP][79][/SUP]
Long-footed Tree Shrew[SUP][50][/SUP]
Macaque[SUP][80][/SUP]
Markhor[SUP][81][/SUP]
Marten[SUP][49][/SUP]
Matschie's Tree Kangaroo[SUP][23][/SUP]
Moco[SUP][82][/SUP]
Mohol Galago[SUP][73][/SUP]
Moor Macaque[SUP][14][/SUP]
Moose[SUP][83][/SUP]
Mountain Goat[SUP][30][/SUP]
Mountain Tree Shrew[SUP][50][/SUP]
Mountain Zebra[SUP][84][/SUP]
Mouse (domestic)[SUP][85][/SUP]
Moustached Tamarin[SUP][51][/SUP]
Mule Deer[SUP][29][/SUP]
Musk-ox[SUP][86][/SUP]
Natterer's Bat[SUP][40][/SUP]
New Zealand Sea Lion[SUP][28][/SUP]
Nilgiri Langur[SUP][63][/SUP]
Noctule[SUP][48][/SUP]
North American Porcupine[SUP][87][/SUP]
Northern Elephant Seal[SUP][28][/SUP]
Northern Fur Seal[SUP][28][/SUP]
Northern Quoll[SUP][55][/SUP]
Olympic Marmot[SUP][88][/SUP]
Orangutan[SUP][89][/SUP]
Pacific Striped Dolphin[SUP][19][/SUP]
Patas Monkey[SUP][90][/SUP]
Pere David's Deer[SUP][29][/SUP]
Pig (Domestic)[SUP][91][/SUP]
Pig-tailed Macaque[SUP][14][/SUP]
Plains Zebra[SUP][92][/SUP]
 
 

Polar Bear[SUP][32][/SUP]
Pretty-faced Wallaby[SUP][23][/SUP]
Proboscis Monkey[SUP][59][/SUP]
Pronghorn[SUP][93][/SUP]
Przewalski's Horse[SUP][84][/SUP]
Puku[SUP][94][/SUP]
Quokka[SUP][95][/SUP]
Rabbit[SUP][96][/SUP]
Raccoon Dog[SUP][97][/SUP]
Red Deer[SUP][29][/SUP]
Red Fox[SUP][98][/SUP]
Red Kangaroo[SUP][23][/SUP]
Red-necked Wallaby[SUP][23][/SUP]
Red Squirrel[SUP][61][/SUP]
Reeves's Muntjac[SUP][68][/SUP]
Reindeer[SUP][42][/SUP]
Rhesus Macaque[SUP][14][/SUP]
Right Whale[SUP][19][/SUP]
Rock Cavy[SUP][38][/SUP]
Rodrigues Fruit Bat[SUP][40][/SUP]
Roe Deer[SUP][29][/SUP]
Rufous Bettong[SUP][99][/SUP]
Rufous-naped Tamarin[SUP][51][/SUP]
Rufous Rat Kangaroo[SUP][23][/SUP]
Saddle-back Tamarin[SUP][51][/SUP]
Savanna Baboon[SUP][57][/SUP]
Sea Otter[SUP][100][/SUP]
Serotine Bat[SUP][40][/SUP]
Sheep (Domestic)[SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][101][/SUP]
Siamang[SUP][102][/SUP]
Sika Deer[SUP][29][/SUP]
Slender Tree Shrew[SUP][50][/SUP]
Sooty Mangabey[SUP][90][/SUP]
Sperm Whale[SUP][19][/SUP]
Spinifex Hopping Mouse[SUP][41][/SUP]
Spinner Dolphin[SUP][19][/SUP]
Spotted Hyena[SUP][16][/SUP][SUP][18][/SUP]
Spotted Seal[SUP][28][/SUP]
Squirrel Monkey[SUP][103][/SUP]
Striped Dolphin[SUP][19][/SUP]
Stuart's Marsupial Mouse[SUP][104][/SUP]
Stumptail Macaque[SUP][14][/SUP]
Swamp Deer[SUP][29][/SUP]
Swamp Wallaby[SUP][23][/SUP]
Takhi[SUP][84][/SUP]
Talapoin[SUP][90][/SUP]
Tammar Wallaby[SUP][23][/SUP]
Tasmanian Devil[SUP][104][/SUP]
Tasmanian Rat Kangaroo[SUP][23][/SUP]
Thinhorn Sheep[SUP][30][/SUP]
Thomson's Gazelle[SUP][25][/SUP]
Tiger[SUP][105][/SUP]
Tonkean Macaque[SUP][14][/SUP]
Tucuxi[SUP][106][/SUP]
Urial[SUP][107][/SUP]
Vampire Bat[SUP][40][/SUP]
Verreaux's Sifaka[SUP][108][/SUP]
Vervet[SUP][90][/SUP]
Vicuna[SUP][109][/SUP]
Walrus[SUP][110][/SUP][SUP][111][/SUP]
Wapiti[SUP][112][/SUP]
Warthog[SUP][113][/SUP]
Waterbuck[SUP][114][/SUP]
Water Buffalo[SUP][30][/SUP]
Weeper Capuchin[SUP][39][/SUP]
Western Grey Kangaroo[SUP][23][/SUP]
West Indian Manatee[SUP][115][/SUP]
Whiptail Wallaby[SUP][23][/SUP]
White-faced Capuchin[SUP][39][/SUP]
White-fronted Capuchin[SUP][39][/SUP]
White-handed Gibbon[SUP][116][/SUP]
White-lipped Peccary[SUP][117][/SUP]
White-tailed Deer[SUP][29][/SUP]
Wild Cavy[SUP][38][/SUP]
Wild Goat[SUP][30][/SUP]
Wisent[SUP][21][/SUP]
Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby[SUP][23][/SUP]
Yellow-toothed Cavy[SUP][38][/SUP]
 


Damn! This defective gene is ubiquitous. I had no idea nature was so stupid...


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 10, 2013)

grow up bigots your world is changing

[video=youtube;AfSGOK5jC9I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfSGOK5jC9I[/video]


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 10, 2013)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> Greatest I am said:
> 
> 
> > I lol at your idea that " all drugs work at the cellular level ,so it must mean it affects DNA " that statement is simply not true.I can acknowledge that our species top priority is to survive and by reproducing being one of the prime objectives to do so,even at the most basic level of instincts, the survivability behavior traits are ingrained within our DNA very intricately.But,you dont seem to think about the fact that if our instinct for procreation were left unchecked, we would overpopulate,homosexuality is but one of mother natures answers.Yet you still call it defective DNA,when the "defective DNA" is one of natures checks and balances for that survivability through not freely allowing overpopulation,if it were defective DNA truely,,then how is it that this "defect" was never bred out of our strain all of this time we have been here?
> ...


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 10, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> Nature preserves homosexuality not only in humans, but in hundreds of other species, as well -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
> 
> Here are the mammals, click my link above to see the full list of reptiles, fish and even insects...
> ...


 
Natu re does not think so cannot be called bright or dumb andyes, all animals and their DNA can be affected and damaged to produce aberrationsof the norm.

Regards
DL


----------



## Lurkdewitt (Sep 10, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Natu re does not think so cannot be called bright or dumb andyes, all animals and their DNA can be affected and damaged to produce aberrationsof the norm.
> 
> Regards
> DL


You sure do pick up on subtle sarcasm don't ya? Anyways, honestly man I would quit trying to convince everyone that gay people are gay because you think it has something to do with damaged DNA. Red heads have red hair and freckles and less melanin than most people; but does it make them weird or unnatural? You know how you were born attracted to the opposite sex and that's the norm for you, well gay people are attracted to the same sex and that's the norm for them. Leave it at that and let people love and live freely without trying to determine their "defect" that made them gay. It's just fucked up and very, very ignorant.

oh and sex isn't just for reproduction. Ever hear of rubbing one off? Every man has done it unless they were born without arms or feet...


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 10, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Natu re does not think so cannot be called bright or dumb andyes, all animals and their DNA can be affected and damaged to produce aberrationsof the norm.
> 
> Regards
> DL


The exact same 'damage' on a consistent basis throughout millions of years? That seems like quite a stretch. Genes mutate at predictable rates, and the mutations are random AFAIK. If the random mutation offers a survival advantage, it is kept in the gene pool via natural selection. If homosexuality (or any genetic trait) is kept in a sea of random mutation for eons, it seems that it must have a survival benefit, the same as for any other successful mutation. What force could possibly damage dna in the exact same way in way all creatures on a consistent basis? That seems like an intelligent creator argument...


P.S. What's wrong with your space bar?????


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 11, 2013)

tenchars10


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 11, 2013)

Lurkdewitt said:


> You sure do pick up on subtle sarcasm don't ya? Anyways, honestly man I would quit trying to convince everyone that gay people are gay because you think it has something to do with damaged DNA. Red heads have red hair and freckles and less melanin than most people; but does it make them weird or unnatural? You know how you were born attracted to the opposite sex and that's the norm for you, well gay people are attracted to the same sex and that's the norm for them. Leave it at that and let people love and live freely without trying to determine their "defect" that made them gay. It's just fucked up and very, very ignorant.
> 
> oh and sex isn't just for reproduction. Ever hear of rubbing one off? Every man has done it unless they were born without arms or feet...


We are one on attitude and respect for all people but thatdoes not mean that I cannot opine on the cause of gayness.

I have heard nothing here to dissuade me of the notion thatit is caused by DNA defects. That is definitely a part of a natural occurrence andno gay should suffer discrimination or denigration because of it.

There is nothing wrong in stating the cause of gayness. Thatdoes not discriminate it just gives the facts.

We are all whatever our DNA produces. Gay or not. 
If you are a product of your DNA, and you cannot deny thatyou are, then gays are also a product of their DNA and to not call theirparticular aberration a defect in a species that must reproduce with theopposite sex would be foolish indeed.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 11, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> The exact same 'damage' on a consistent basis throughout millions of years? That seems like quite a stretch. Genes mutate at predictable rates, and the mutations are random AFAIK. If the random mutation offers a survival advantage, it is kept in the gene pool via natural selection. If homosexuality (or any genetic trait) is kept in a sea of random mutation for eons, it seems that it must have a survival benefit, the same as for any other successful mutation. What force could possibly damage dna in the exact same way in way all creatures on a consistent basis? That seems like an intelligent creator argument...
> 
> 
> P.S. What's wrong with your space bar?????


Nothing. It happens when I write and paste from works. Somehow the transfer takes out some spaces. I already have to fix the sizing in a separate operation and just have not bothered editing the lack of spaces.

Survival advantage has been mentioned but no one came up with how not reproducing is good for a species that must reproduce to maintain itself.

As to mutating or changing. DNA tries to reproduce exactly so to say it mutates at a given rate is inaccurate. I have heard of a DNA string that does mutate at a given rate but it is the part that decides how often DNA will reproduce.

Also. Please give a quick read to the post above. It may behelpful here.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 11, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> View attachment 2813629tenchars10


 
Try reading what is written instead of just stupidly puttingyour garbage out here that targets no one.

Have you not noticed that you are the only one with thatview?

Get better and smarter or get lost. You are shaming yourselfas no one is discriminating of denigrating gays. 

Regards
DL


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 11, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Try reading what is written instead of just stupidly puttingyour garbage out here that targets no one.
> 
> Have you not noticed that you are the only one with thatview?
> 
> ...


When you call a group of people "defective" for no other reason than your own bigoted ignorance then you are denigrating that group

I don't expect you to understand this or even care. your sort rarely does either


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 11, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Try reading what is written instead of just stupidly puttingyour garbage out here that targets no one.


You would rather I target specific people and show them comics?



> Have you not noticed that you are the only one with thatview?


I am the only one who says that homosexuality is still largely a mystery and that calling it a defect is a value judgment based on feelings? I must have missed all the people who are posting in support of your position. Have you noticed that you randomly run words together? What is your angle here, that I should feel ashamed and be quiet?



> Get better and smarter or get lost. You are shaming yourselfas no one is discriminating of denigrating gays.


Ah yes so it is about shaming me into silence. Another typical tactic of bigots and denialists. If that comic is not pertinent to you then why do you feel the need to respond and shut me up? I realize you are for equal treatment of homosexuals but that does not excuse your arrogant and sloppy position on the science, and when trying to explain yourself you've only shown the ability to masturbate in the vomit of your mind. You will need to do more than repeat yourself and childishly deflect criticism if you want your rhetoric to be worthy of actual intelligent discussion. You do not respond to logic, you do not respond to science, and your mind is closed to new information. You are a bigot who can't even agree with other bigots, yet you claim my position is the lonely one?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 11, 2013)

I don't see homosexuality on this list of birth defects...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_disorder


Could it be, and just stay with me G.I.A..... that there is absolutely zero scientific basis for your opinion and you're just clinging to it because of ignorance? Basically you're saying "I can't think of anything else that would cause homosexuality, therefore it must be defective genes.", but you're not in a position to make that statement with ANY aspect of credibility. In fact there're actual scientists that have opinions _worth listening to,_ that disagree with you and also have the understanding and background in science to credibly make those claims. 

 "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 11, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> When you call a group of people "defective" for no other reason than your own bigoted ignorance then you are denigrating that group
> 
> I don't expect you to understand this or even care. your sort rarely does either


 
Speaking the truth or offering an opinion is not denigrating anyone.

The only bigot here is you.

Regards
DL


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 11, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Speaking the truth or offering an opinion is not denigrating anyone.
> 
> The only bigot here is you.
> 
> ...


The great i am says"I'm not denigrating homosexuals I'm just saying they're defective compared to everyone else"

Cool story bro

I'm more than happy to admit my intolerance of cunts like yourself. It's clear to everybody here what your reasons are yet your too pathetic to be proud of your bigotry. Your feeble attempts at hiding behind an intellectual highground is glaring obvious to everyone here

Be proud of the bigoted pig inside you don't pretend it's not there


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 11, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Speaking the truth or offering an opinion is not denigrating anyone.
> 
> The only bigot here is you.
> 
> ...


How could calling an entire group of people 'defective' be seen as anything _but _denigrating? You're implicitly saying homosexuals are 'broken'. You've also been offered evidence that shows homosexuals play strong roles in the suitability of hundreds of mammalian species, and you reject the evidence based on your understanding, as a laymen, of DNA. 

That is the definition of a bigot.


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Sep 11, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Dislexicmidget2021 said:
> 
> 
> > I also said above that not all drugs work at the DNA levelbut more will in the future.
> ...


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 11, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> How could calling an entire group of people 'defective' be seen as anything _but _denigrating? You're implicitly saying homosexuals are 'broken'. You've also been offered evidence that shows homosexuals play strong roles in the suitability of hundreds of mammalian species, and you reject the evidence based on your understanding, as a laymen, of DNA.
> 
> That is the definition of a bigot.


Is saying that the group born with a heart valve problemcaused by a defect in their DNA discrimination and denigration those in thatgroup?

No.

So why is it so for gays?

No one has yet to show that theirs is not a DNA and geneticcondition and logic says it is as that is what science is pointing to.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 11, 2013)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> Greatest I am said:
> 
> 
> > I also said above that not all drugs work at the DNA levelbut more will in the future.
> ...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 11, 2013)

People born with heart problems, actually do have a defect in their heart. They could die or have a limited life, because of the defects in their heart. Homosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals are completely healthy people, whom other than sexual preference are indistinguishable form heterosexuals. 

If you took even the slightest amount of time to read some of the theories as to why people are gay, you'd have the answers you're looking for. 

Also, for someone who talks about logic like they know a thing or two, you're prone to an awful lot of logical fallacies. Argument from Incredulity, begging the question, fallacy of the single cause, using a single authority, moving the goalposts.... I could go on, but until you have some understanding of why your arguments suck, there's really no point. But then again, bigots usually suck at arguing.

Here's some more evidence that helps refute your stance.

Bearman and Brückner (2002) criticized early studies of concentrating on small, select samples[SUP][7][/SUP] and non-representative selection of their subjects.[SUP][8][/SUP] They studied 289 pairs of identical twins (monozygotic or from one fertilized egg) and 495 pairs of fraternal twins (dizygotic or from two fertilized eggs) and found concordance rates for same-sex attraction of only 7.7% for male identical twins and 5.3% for females, a pattern which they say *"does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context."[SUP][7][/SUP]*

A 2010 study of all adult twins in Sweden (more than 7,600 twins)[SUP][9][/SUP] found that same-sex behavior was explained by both *heritable factors and individual-specific environmental sources (such as prenatal environment, experience with illness and trauma, as well as peer groups, and sexual experiences), *while influences of shared-environment variables such as familial environment and societal attitudes had a weaker, but significant effect. Women showed a statistically non-significant trend to weaker influence of hereditary effects, while men showed no effect of shared environmental effects. The use of all adult twins in Sweden was designed to address the criticism of volunteer studies, in which a potential bias towards participation by gay twins may influence the results;

Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34.39 of the variance [of sexual orientation], the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18.19 for genetic factors, .16.17 for shared environmental, and 64.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects,* and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.[SUP][9][/SUP]*​


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 11, 2013)

I see nothing conclusive yet.
Have you ever been into animal husbandry?
Pretend you are Mother Nature. If you were starting a farm, thatwas to compete fiercely with other farms, and were deciding which animals fromyour neighbor you were going to buy and some were homosexuals, some bisexuals, someasexual and some heterosexual, all completely healthy, which would you choose?

Regards
DL


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 11, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> I see nothing conclusive yet.
> Have you ever been into animal husbandry?
> Pretend you are Mother Nature. If you were starting a farm, thatwas to compete fiercely with other farms, and were deciding which animals fromyour neighbor you were going to buy and some were homosexuals, some bisexuals, someasexual and some heterosexual, all completely healthy, which would you choose?
> 
> ...


are you retarded or something?

the *&#8203;Real mother nature** has chosen homosexuals, bisexuals, asexual and heterosexuals

We have been competing against our neighbours and guess what? Humans are by far and away the most successful breed on this planet with the homosexuals, bisexuals, asexual, and heterosexual mix

Looks like the *Real mother nature* *is doing something right

*


*THERE IS NO SUCH THING*


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 11, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> I see nothing conclusive yet.
> Have you ever been into animal husbandry?
> *Pretend you are Mother Nature. If you were starting a farm, thatwas to compete fiercely with other farms, and were deciding which animals fromyour neighbor you were going to buy and some were homosexuals, some bisexuals, someasexual and some heterosexual, all completely healthy, which would you choose?*
> 
> ...



Thanks for the strawman argument. 

There's no amount of talking about purchasing animals for a farm that will make any sort of valid point about sexuality being a defect based on DNA. By your same silly argument you could say that any cow with a slightly smaller udder is also defective because a farmer might want cows with bigger udders. Or that only the absolute fastest horses are normal and all the rest are defective because someone selecting horses for racing would only want the fastest. It's absolutely ridiculous. 

You already have your mind made up and no amount of evidence will dissuade you. 

Bigot.


----------



## Grojak (Sep 11, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Thanks for the strawman argument.
> 
> There's no amount of talking about purchasing animals for a farm that will make any sort of valid point about sexuality being a defect based on DNA. By your same silly argument you could say that any cow with a slightly smaller udder is also defective because a farmer might want cows with bigger udders. *Or that only the absolute fastest horses are normal and all the rest are defective because someone selecting horses for racing would only want the fastest*. It's absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> ...


At the risk of sounding like a bigot (screw you if you think I'm being one lol) We in the USA are living proof of a true breeding project that is often not talked about because it's not a "safe" topic. When those slave drivers were in African countries did the take just anyone, no they picked the biggest, strongest men, not sure how they chose the women but thats irrelevant to my point. I've read that slave owners would forcibly breed the strongest males to females so they could have bigger stronger slaves. 

Now think about it, what sport do the african countries seem to excel in, marathon running and their always short skinny men. Those who sold slaves hand picked the biggest and stingiest of them. This has a direct coalition with the way blacks excel in sports in America, we only originally had the best of the best sold here.


----------



## Lurkdewitt (Sep 11, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> When you call a group of people "defective" for no other reason than your own bigoted ignorance then you are denigrating that group
> 
> I don't expect you to understand this or even care. your sort rarely does either


You took the words out of my mouth brother! Man, I'm having a really hard time not saying something dickish. This subject hits my "button" because I have seen my sister be called broken, immoral, confused, etc. The simple fact of the matter is that, we have no idea why people are gay! You can ponder and research about what makes them unique on your own or wait for more information to surface, but don't say they have defective DNA. They may have *differences *in their DNA compared to heterosexuals, but it doesn't make it a defect. I know you are not trying to discriminate, but depersonalizing a large number of people by calling them defective is just as bad IMO.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 11, 2013)

Grojak said:


> At the risk of sounding like a bigot (screw you if you think I'm being one lol) We in the USA are living proof of a true breeding project that is often not talked about because it's not a "safe" topic. When those slave drivers were in African countries did the take just anyone, no they picked the biggest, strongest men, not sure how they chose the women but thats irrelevant to my point. I've read that slave owners would forcibly breed the strongest males to females so they could have bigger stronger slaves.
> 
> Now think about it, what sport do the african countries seem to excel in, marathon running and their always short skinny men. Those who sold slaves hand picked the biggest and stingiest of them. This has a direct coalition with the way blacks excel in sports in America, we only originally had the best of the best sold here.


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Sep 11, 2013)

Dislexicmidget 2021 said:


> Greatest I am said:
> 
> 
> > Hogwash. The % of gays in our world is insignificant.
> ...


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 11, 2013)

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/12/11/homosexuality-ultimately-result-gene-regulation-researchers-find/

http://sourcefednews.com/theres-no-gay-gene-says-scientists/


----------



## Grojak (Sep 12, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/12/11/homosexuality-ultimately-result-gene-regulation-researchers-find/
> 
> http://sourcefednews.com/theres-no-gay-gene-says-scientists/


well fuck yea if Faux news reports something it must be true...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 12, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/12/11/homosexuality-ultimately-result-gene-regulation-researchers-find/
> 
> http://sourcefednews.com/theres-no-gay-gene-says-scientists/



"They&#8217;re actually made to protect the fetus from too much natural variation. When testosterone gets too high, the epi-marks kick in to prevent the baby girl from getting too masculinized, and the inverse is true for boys."

So, this team of scientists says it's a natural protection measure. Doesn't sound very defective to me.... sounds like nature has that shit figured out to a tee.


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 12, 2013)

You will have to admit that it is the genes that are doingthe work of creating gayness and that genes are controlled by DNA.

Break that obvious logic trail and then we can chat.

Regards
DL


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 12, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> You will have to admit that it is the genes that are doingthe work of creating gayness and that genes are controlled by DNA.
> 
> Break that obvious logic trail and then we can chat.
> 
> ...


Why are you leaving out the bit where you slip "defective" in there?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 12, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> You will have to admit that it is the genes that are doingthe work of creating gayness and that genes are controlled by DNA.
> 
> Break that obvious logic trail and then we can chat.
> 
> ...



You, of all people shouldn't speak of logic when your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. 

Homosexuality is partially caused by DNA, way to state the obvious. It's also caused by hormones, temperatures, social stimulation, and a variety of other factors. None of which point to homosexuals being "defective".

Repeating the same incorrect shit doesn't make it right, just so you know...


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 12, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Why are you leaving out the bit where you slip "defective" in there?


 
Just not putting superfluous material in. I am a twofingered typist.

Sometime it is better to go slow and get past one concept ata time.

Did you think those reading this O P so short of memory thatthey would forget my position?

Tsk. Tsk.

Regards
DL


----------



## joe macclennan (Sep 12, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Just not putting superfluous material in. I am a twofingered typist.



so you are a two fingered troll?? 

explains a lot 

regards

joe


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 12, 2013)

I should point out that by G.I.A.'s own twisted logic, anyone who doesn't have kids is also defective because they don't contribute to the continuation of the species. That _is_ the qualifier he put on his definition of the term "defect".


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 12, 2013)

I should point out that by G.I.A.'s own twisted logic, anyone who doesn't have kids is also defective because they don't contribute to the continuation of the species. That _is_ the qualifier he put on his definition of the term "defect".



Greatest I am said:


> You are right that it is all about intolerance but my answeris still the most honest.
> 
> Telling a member of a species that must reproduce to sustainitself that it is not a defect to not have the motivation or desire toreproduce with one from the opposite sex, is the truth and not a lie.
> 
> ...


----------



## FilthyFletch (Sep 12, 2013)

Homosexuality in no form is a natural thing. It is by its own mean a genetic anomially caused by a genetic flaw. These basic facts by definition make homosexuality a non normal occurrence or happening. As far as choice it is and it isn't. The choice that is made comes from that persons feeling they are not attracted to the opposite sex but the same sex so they choose to follow that urge or feeling from the norm. They don't choose their feelings just which life style they will live with. They could choose to ignore their own feeling and follow a standard heterosexual life style which would make them unhappy so they choose which life style they will live but do not choose to be born with the genetic defect that makes then abnormal.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 12, 2013)

FilthyFletch said:


> Homosexuality in no form is a natural thing. It is by its own mean a genetic anomially caused by a genetic flaw. These basic facts by definition make homosexuality a non normal occurrence or happening. As far as choice it is and it isn't. The choice that is made comes from that persons feeling they are not attracted to the opposite sex but the same sex so they choose to follow that urge or feeling from the norm. They don't choose their feelings just which life style they will live with. They could choose to ignore their own feeling and follow a standard heterosexual life style which would make them unhappy so they choose which life style they will live but do not choose to be born with the genetic defect that makes then abnormal.



Yeah, we've already been over this....

There's evidence that suggests homosexuality not only_* isn't*_ a defect, but that it plays specific roles in sustaining many, many mammalian species. Also, the amount of evidence supporting the idea that homosexuality stems from many factors far outweighs the 'strictly DNA' theory. How can you ignore so many scientific studies and maintain your patently incorrect view? It's so sad it's almost comical.....almost.

Also, if homosexuality isn't natural, why does it occur in nature?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2013)

[youtube]cTl35ThB5KU[/youtube]

[youtube]UlQvf7IVxao[/youtube]


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2013)

Many homosexuals have both the desire and ability to not only procreate, but to produce healthy viable offspring. The only difference, the one defining variable, is in the enjoyment. We know this because homosexuals report it as so and we can see the numbers that seek to be parents. Unless they are all faking it, which is an idea on the level of conspiracy theory. So the position becomes "You do not enjoy the same sort of sex that others enjoy, so your basic existence is flawed." You reduce people to the arbitrary factor of what makes them feel good and decide that it means they are less than you. This may fit with your worldview and make you feel comfortable, but it is not a reflection of the reality that the rest of us experience. That makes you a bigot who dehumanizes people in order to make yourself feel like you have it figured out. Can you follow the logic trail on that?


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> [youtube]cTl35ThB5KU[/youtube]
> 
> [youtube]UlQvf7IVxao[/youtube]


LOL! That Corvino vid is great, thanks, Heis...

P.S. Hope you're okay from last week's shoot out...


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 13, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> I should point out that by G.I.A.'s own twisted logic, anyone who doesn't have kids is also defective because they don't contribute to the continuation of the species. That _is_ the qualifier he put on his definition of the term "defect".


 
When arguments fail, fools turn to lies.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 13, 2013)

Heisenburg

Good find.

Regards
DL


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 13, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> When arguments fail, fools turn to lies.
> 
> Regards
> DL





Greatest I am said:


> Telling a member of a species that must reproduce to sustainitself that it is not a defect to not have the motivation or desire toreproduce with one from the opposite sex, is the truth and not a lie.


Midst the double negatives, you state that not having the desire to reproduce with the opposite sex is a defect. Therefore, people who don't want kids are defective by your logic. 



Who is lying now?

Regards
BB


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 13, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Midst the double negatives, you state that not having the desire to reproduce with the opposite sex is a defect. Therefore, people who don't want kids are defective by your logic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Describe for us what the standard model is that you wouldchoose for a human being.

One that had the desire and ability to reproduce or onewithout these qualities?

Regards
DL


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 13, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Describe for us what the standard model is that you wouldchoose for a human being.
> 
> One that had the desire and ability to reproduce or onewithout these qualities?
> 
> ...


Don't avoid my statement like a coward. 

You said:
_



Telling a member of a species that must reproduce to sustainitself that it is not a defect to not have the motivation or desire toreproduce with one from the opposite sex, is the truth and not a lie.

Click to expand...

_
So by your own ridiculous logic, people who don't want to have kids are defective as well. Don't pass over this like it doesn't matter, either stand by your comments or retract them.


----------



## burgertime2010 (Sep 13, 2013)

I think the answer lies quite ahead in how "natural" it is. I am looking at an overpopulation problem, I am looking at chemicals only, I am thinking Darwinian adaptation, and reproduction. The condition is natural.....no doubt, it boils down to feelings, not simple sex. The idea that population is an issue and that homosexuals will prevent adequate procreation is popular. I remember the Gaia hypothesis that was an idea that there is a pervasive consciousness that infuses all earthbound life....even the earth itself. This is not a god-concept, more or less a validation of the miraculous causes and effects that we endure as Earthlings in relationship to the sun. I like the idea that the Earth is getting full and biology and culture are shifting toward a solution, in part. Procreation is a major problem!!! I am on a limb here, please forgive but as evolution comes into play what advantages do straight vs homo people have right now? Given that, the choice for a "family" exists for anybody and gays can reproduce through multiple ways. Perhaps, the absence of the traditional family, better health, and disposable income may become survival mechanisms. Too many of us will destroy us all. Science makes traditional procreation a non-issue, regardless of sexuality, you may become a mother or father. The Idea that this is un-natural is where I begin to understand however, I feel somehow it is advantageous.


----------



## Thundercat (Sep 13, 2013)

I'm not even gonna get into the debate with GIA, its silly and he is close minded. I'm with the rest of you guys on this, and since we are dropping quotes how about:

"Live and Let Live"

I do want to simply say that burgertime points to a very important fact on this planet. Human beings are consuming too much, and taking up too much space. We NEED to stop reproducing SO FAST. I can't believe the way the media, and commercial aspects of American specifically still push this idea of everyone should be reproducing. They need to be pushing the idea of limiting reproduction as a conscious decision. Rather then glamorizing teen moms, and 19 kids and counting encourage people to think about the future. Jobs are only getting more scarce as all these kids are getting out of college and wanting to find work. Anyway just my opinion peace.


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 13, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> Don't avoid my statement like a coward.
> 
> You said:
> 
> So by your own ridiculous logic, people who don't want to have kids are defective as well. Don't pass over this like it doesn't matter, either stand by your comments or retract them.


Debate includes reciprocity. You refuse to reciprocate. See ya.


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 13, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> I think the answer lies quite ahead in how "natural" it is. I am looking at an overpopulation problem, I am looking at chemicals only, I am thinking Darwinian adaptation, and reproduction. The condition is natural.....no doubt, it boils down to feelings, not simple sex. The idea that population is an issue and that homosexuals will prevent adequate procreation is popular. I remember the Gaia hypothesis that was an idea that there is a pervasive consciousness that infuses all earthbound life....even the earth itself. This is not a god-concept, more or less a validation of the miraculous causes and effects that we endure as Earthlings in relationship to the sun. I like the idea that the Earth is getting full and biology and culture are shifting toward a solution, in part. Procreation is a major problem!!! I am on a limb here, please forgive but as evolution comes into play what advantages do straight vs homo people have right now? Given that, the choice for a "family" exists for anybody and gays can reproduce through multiple ways. Perhaps, the absence of the traditional family, better health, and disposable income may become survival mechanisms. Too many of us will destroy us all. Science makes traditional procreation a non-issue, regardless of sexuality, you may become a mother or father. The Idea that this is un-natural is where I begin to understand however, I feel somehow it is advantageous.


The 2 or 3 % of the population of gays has no significantimpact on populations or population demographics.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 13, 2013)

Thundercat said:


> "Live and Let Live"
> 
> .


 
I agree with this with this but would add, ---- if no harmis being done by those you let live.

I am often asked why I go after right wing Christians and whyI hate the genocidal son murdering God they follow 
And why I do not just live and let live.

That is when I give them my view of that term. It goes likethis.

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt allof us who are moral religionists as well as those who do not believe. They allhurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief or not. Theymake us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is aGodhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution.Beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic are evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48b_1185215493

Death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_BVzw&feature=related

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do isnothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.


As it pertains to gays, if things are between consentingadults, live and let live for sure.
My gay friends agree.

Regards
DL


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 13, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Debate includes reciprocity. You refuse to reciprocate. See ya.


How is avoiding my question reciprocating? You have got to be the biggest hypocrite I've had the displeasure of debating on here in a while. You literally refused to reciprocate the conversation by ignoring my question, and when I called you on it; you claimed that I don't reciprocate. How fucking hypocritical can a person be? 

Let's try this again!

You said;



Greatest I am said:


> Telling a member of a species that must reproduce to sustainitself that it is not a defect to not have the motivation or desire toreproduce with one from the opposite sex, is the truth and not a lie.


And I said:



beefbisquit said:


> So by your own ridiculous logic, people who don't want to have kids are defective as well.


And you've yet to answer. 

EDIT: You also accused me of lying about you, when I didn't, and I proved it by posting the quote that YOU wrote. So, again you're a hypocrite for calling me a liar when in fact, it's you "telling fibs".



Greatest I am said:


> When arguments fail, fools turn to lies.
> 
> Regards
> DL


----------



## burgertime2010 (Sep 13, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> The 2 or 3 % of the population of gays has no significantimpact on populations or population demographics. I object to most of the manipulations you are putting up,
> 
> Regards
> DL


2-3% is fairly significant if you take out potential related births.....Onward, if it has no impact why is it unnatural? What you


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 13, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Describe for us what the standard model is that you wouldchoose for a human being.
> 
> One that had the desire and ability to reproduce or onewithout these qualities?
> 
> ...


I believe that Heis pointed out that many homosexual men and women have both the desire and ability to reproduce, either through heterosexual sex, artificial insemination through surrogates, or many adopt children heterosexuals discard (the last probably not relative here). So, this argument doesn't fly, either...

P.S. Your space bar is still wonky in each post, words run together even with the text that isn't c&p. Why is that?


----------



## FilthyFletch (Sep 13, 2013)

Beefbisquick.. I assume your not much into science as what you replied to my comment is nothing more then opinion. It has been in fact shown that in the genetic mapping looking at those who are homosexuals their are RNA differences and Chromosome sub structure that are not the norm. Normal being the understood majority within a defined group ie in humans the norm is that gentic hetero women and general heterol men attract and reproduce to continue the species. Now the homosexual beings which are not the norm or normal sexuality for our species are the abnormally. So for you to deny so many scientific studies and genetic mutation Gnome mapping is laughable.

You then ask a question which in reality makes no sense as you ask about one definition while trying to insinuate the world has a single meaning.Everything more or less happens in nature as in if your using it to define environment which your asking but your impliment is in regards to a populous question as in human nature or ie tendencies which then is completely different. Yes in the "Environment of Nature which is Earth" homosexuality happens. Now has for it being a tendency of human nature its is not normal or the percentage of homosexuals would have to be much higher which it is not.

Now I could ask just as ridiculous question then such a " Well if it is natural and meant to be then why can't 2 males or 2 female humans reproduce to further their geneitc traits to the world?" That's also part of the natural selection process. Animals, mammals, and fish lineage will allow the most important traits dictate the species further existence. Since the homosexual life is no condusive to the speices survival it has not been given the option to work anyway but as it was originally intended to. If people are gay and that's how they are happy that's fine, but a few things just do not change basic scientific facts your chromosomes determine your sex so he's will always be he's and shes will always be she's. It gets pretty deep with the basics of defining the epi marks or "switches" that activate or deactivate traits which if your familiar with epigentics it makes quick sense.
A quick way to say it is kind of like if a mother has this trait and when she is pregnent the epimark traits that regulate the genetic production of say testosterone which she had blocked as a female fetus when she was born flip the epimarks in her new forming male fetus resulting in low levels which now are being ignored by this male child then basically the new embrayo is told to not worry about testosterone needs or production which all the estrogen to be dominant activating female trait tendencies. And then it is the opposite in homosexual women. So the idea that sexuality is not genetically influenced is just false and non proven while this branch of logic has data proven it.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 13, 2013)

FilthyFletch said:


> Beefbisquick.. I assume your not much into science as what you replied to my comment is nothing more then opinion. It has been in fact shown that in the genetic mapping looking at those who are homosexuals their are RNA differences and Chromosome sub structure that are not the norm. Normal being the understood majority within a defined group ie in humans the norm is that gentic hetero women and general heterol men attract and reproduce to continue the species. Now the homosexual beings which are not the norm or normal sexuality for our species are the abnormally. So for you to deny so many scientific studies and genetic mutation Gnome mapping is laughable.
> 
> You then ask a question which in reality makes no sense as you ask about one definition while trying to insinuate the world has a single meaning.Everything more or less happens in nature as in if your using it to define environment which your asking but your impliment is in regards to a populous question as in human nature or ie tendencies which then is completely different. Yes in the "Environment of Nature which is Earth" homosexuality happens. Now has for it being a tendency of human nature its is not normal or the percentage of homosexuals would have to be much higher which it is not.
> 
> ...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 13, 2013)

FilthyFletch said:


> Beefbisquick.. I assume your not much into science as what you replied to my comment is nothing more then opinion. It has been in fact shown that in the genetic mapping looking at those who are homosexuals their are RNA differences and Chromosome sub structure that are not the norm. Normal being the understood majority within a defined group ie in humans the norm is that gentic hetero women and general heterol men attract and reproduce to continue the species. Now the homosexual beings which are not the norm or normal sexuality for our species are the abnormally. So for you to deny so many scientific studies and genetic mutation Gnome mapping is laughable.
> 
> You then ask a question which in reality makes no sense as you ask about one definition while trying to insinuate the world has a single meaning.Everything more or less happens in nature as in if your using it to define environment which your asking but your impliment is in regards to a populous question as in human nature or ie tendencies which then is completely different. Yes in the "Environment of Nature which is Earth" homosexuality happens. Now has for it being a tendency of human nature its is not normal or the percentage of homosexuals would have to be much higher which it is not.
> 
> ...


First of all, most of that didn't make sense to me, but I'll respond to the parts that did.

I never made the claim that DNA didn't affect homosexuality. I rejected the statement that G.I.A. made that it's _only_ caused by a genetic defect. You are arguing against something I never said, and in fact if you read this thread in it's entirety I posted links to several scientific studies, that indeed mention epi-marks as one of the causes. If you actually read _before _commenting, you'd also see that _many other factors _also influence homosexuality. All of which have strong supporting evidence gathered from scientific studies. 

I don't need a lesson in basic evolutionary principles either. I've already posted links to studies that show evolutionary benefits to homosexuality, so your statement about homosexuality not being conducive to mammalian and fish species survivability, is pretty short sighted. For example having a homosexual child can dramatically affect the sex of your _next _child. It could be argued that without homosexuality there would either be too many women or not enough, we don't know, but that doesn't sound very good for the sustainability of the species, does it? 


*INCOMING KNOWLEDGE BOMB! *

*A well-known theorist suggests that biology influences childrens temperaments and their preferences for sex-atypical activities and peers, leading them to feel different others of their sex. They later become attracted to what they are different from.*
[Exotic becomes erotic theory] proposes that biological variables, such as genes, prenatal hormones, and brain neuroanatomy, do not code for sexual orientation per se but for childhood temperaments that influence a childs preferences for sex-typical or sex-atypical activities and peers. These preferences lead children to feel different from opposite- or same-sex peersto perceive them as dissimilar, unfamiliar, and exotic. This in turn produced heightened nonspecific autonomic arousal that subsequently gets eroticized to that same class of dissimilar peers: Exotic becomes erotic.
Bem, Daryl J., PhD. (1996) Exotic Becomes Erotic: A Developmental Theory of Sexual Orientation. Psychological Review. Vol. 103. No. 2, 320-335.​*

Commentary from scientific literature shows that evidence is lacking for a simple genetic or biological explanation of homosexuality. Evidence does not support the hypothesis of a gay gene.*
Its important to stress what I didnt find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didnt show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.LeVay, Simon, PhD. (March 1994). Sexual Brain. Discover. ​There is no one gay gene. Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so its not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression.
Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation.
Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual.Mustanski, Brian S., PhD. (Jan. 27, 2005). University of Illinois news release on A Genomewide Scan of Male Sexual Orientation. Human Genetics, vol. 116. ​While some authors have speculated about the existence of genes for homosexuality, genes in themselves cannot directly specify any behavior or cognitive schema. Instead, genes direct a particular pattern of RNA synthesis which in turn specifies the production of a particular protein.
There are necessarily many intervening pathways between a gene and a specific behavior and even more intervening variables between a gene and a pattern that involves both thinking and behaving.
The term homosexual gene is, therefore, without meaning, unless one proposes that a particular gene, perhaps through a hormonal mechanism, organizes the brain specifically to support a homosexual orientation.
Byne, William, MD, PhD. (1995). Science and Belief: Psychobiological Research on Sexual Orientation. Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 28. ​*

It is possible that hormones could affect sexuality through their impact on gender-typical traits. Some recent findings suggest this could be true in women.*
Girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, for example, are exposed to high levels of adrenal androgens [hormones] prenatally. Some research indicates that postnatally they show greater aggression, enhanced (i.e. masculine) visuospatial abilities, more masculine occupational preferences, and an increased rate of bisexual or homosexual sexual orientation in fantasy and/or behavior.
Alexander, Gerianne M. (2003). An Evolutionary Perspective of Sex-Typed Toy Preferences: Pink, Blue, and the Brain. Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 32, No 1. ​*

But it would be inaccurate to believe that hormones have any direct link to adult sexual interests or orientation.*
Studies of men and women who experienced prenatal defects in hormone metabolism have not found a concurrent increase in homosexual behavior.
Overall, the data do not support a causal connection between hormones and human sexual orientation.
Banks, Amy, MD, and Gartrell, Nanette K., MD. (1995). Hormones and Sexual Orientation: A Questionable Link. Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 28 (3-4). ​
The dominant paradigm that generates support for biological theories of sexual orientation has profound conceptual flaws
The current consensus opinion is that no causal relationship exists between adult hormonal status and sexual orientation.
Currently, the major impetus for speculation and research concerning an endocrinological basis for sexual orientation derives from animal studies Such studies have established the prenatal hormonal hypothesis for sexual differentiation of the rodent brain
The problems inherent in using studies of mating behaviors in rodentsto formulate a theory of sexual orientation in humans are immense
Thus, the prenatal hormonal hypothesis as derived from animal studies cannot account for exclusively homosexual behavior in men with normal male genitalia.
Byne, William, MD, PhD. (1995). Science and Belief: Psychobiological Research on Sexual Orientation. Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 28 (2). ​*

Birth order has been investigated as a possible factor influencing homosexuality but without conclusive results.*
The number of biological older brothers, including those not reared with the participant (but not the number of nonbiological older brothers), increases the probability of homosexuality in men. These results provide evidence that a prenatal mechanism, and not social and/or rearing factors, affects mens sexual orientation development
If rearing or social factors associated with older male siblings underlies the fraternal birth-order effect, then the number of nonbiological older brothers should predict mens sexual orientation, but they do not If rearing or social factors underlie the fraternal birth-order effect, the number of biological older brothers with who they were not reared should not predict mens sexual orientation because they should have no impact on the sociosexual environment of their younger brothers. Yet, these brothers do predict mens sexual orientation just as the number of biological older brothers with whom they were reared.
These results support a prenatal [before birth] origin to sexual orientation development in men and indicate that the fraternal birth-order effect is probably the result of a maternal memory for male gestations or births.
Bogaert, Anthony, PhD. (July 11, 2006). Biological Versus Nonbiological Older Brothers and Mens Sexual Orientation. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103. ​
In diverse samples and independent replications, homosexual men are found to have a greater number of older brothers than heterosexual men [This] certainly does not provide a universal hypothesis for the origins of homosexuality since the majority of homosexual men do have this history and do not fit in this model.
The hypothesis advanced in the above studies is that the late birth order, with more male siblings born earlier, could lead to a progressive immune response of the mother to androgens and/or Y-linked [male specific] antigens which, by maternal transfer of these immune antibodies to the fetus, could impair brain masculinization of the fetus. However, why this mechanism would selectively impair only certain androgen-dependent processes, such as the brain programming, and not other, like formation of the genitalia, is not explained by this hypothesis, and not even addressed by the proponents. Nor does this theory explain why the majority of boys late in birth order do not become homosexual, even if the elder brother is homosexual
The biological explanation advanced for the fraternal birth order hypothesis lacks any experimental support.
Gooren, Louis, PhD, MD. (Nov. 2006). The Biology of Human Psychosexual Differentiation. Hormones and Behavior, 2006. ​*

Research on brain structure suggests a possible link between homosexuality and less masculinized brains.
* 
But the research does not demonstrate that the less masculine brain structure itself is the direct cause of the homosexual orientation. It is, however, conceivable that a male with a less masculinized brain might develop gender-atypical traits, leading to gender incongruity. This might be especially true if those around him accentuate his differences.
A growing body of empirical literature suggests that the brains of gay males are less masculinized than those of heterosexual males, reflected in visual-spatial task performance  a measure of cerebral masculinization and one in which heterosexual males usually surpass females.
Several studies report that the cognitive performance of gay males is more typical of heterosexual females than heterosexual males.
Furthermore, the brain waves of gay males while performing verbal and spatial tasks are more similar to heterosexual females than males or significantly different from both.
Cohen, Kenneth M., PhD. (2002). Relationships Among Childhood Sex-Atypical Behavior, Spatial Ability, Handedness, and Sexual Orientation in Men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 31, No. 1.​

From the APA:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.


----------



## thecoolman (Sep 14, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> I believe that Heis pointed out that many homosexual men and women have both the desire and ability to reproduce, either through heterosexual sex, artificial insemination through surrogates, or many adopt children heterosexuals discard (the last probably not relative here). So, this argument doesn't fly, either...
> 
> P.S. Your space bar is still wonky in each post, words run together even with the text that isn't c&p. Why is that?



Yes gay adoption should be universally illegal.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 14, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> Yes gay adoption should be universally illegal.


Well, we are fortunate as a society to have law makers that seem much wiser and more informed than yourself. I know two gay couples that have children, and they are much better parents than most heterosexual couples I've seen...


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 15, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> Its impossible they are teaching the kids sick immoral behavior.
> Fortunately same sex adoption is illegal in many states.


Sick and immoral according to who? You? So what? Why should they, or the rest of us, care what you think? Everyone deserves a chance to pursue happiness, that's in our Declaration of Independence. They are teaching their children to be effective, happy moral individuals. There's nothing immoral about two people in a committed relationship showing affection for one another, regardless of the icky feelings it may give _you_. It's not about you, it's about them. Ignorance and bigotry has a long history in this country, luckily that zeitgeist is evolving toward enlightenment and away from the fear-based, neanderthal thinking of the dark/bronze ages. Come, please join the rest of us in the 21st century...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 15, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> Its impossible they are teaching the kids sick immoral behavior.
> Fortunately same sex adoption is illegal in many states.


There's nothing immoral about two consenting adults, who cherish and love one another. 

There's no utilitarian argument against it (having responsible, gay parents/guardians far outweighs having no parents), and the deontological argument is so weak and religious based, it's basically non-existent.

[video=youtube_share;eb-JZSyhWSc]http://youtu.be/eb-JZSyhWSc[/video]


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 15, 2013)

burgertime2010 said:


> 2-3% is fairly significant if you take out potential related births.....Onward, if it has no impact why is it unnatural? What you


It is not statisticallysignificant as the numbers have remained in those lower realms forever.

Who said it was unnatural?

 DNA being damaged is a common and naturalphenomenon. The fact that it produces gayness does not change the naturalnessof gayness nor the process.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 15, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> I believe that Heis pointed out that many homosexual men and women have both the desire and ability to reproduce, either through heterosexual sex, artificial insemination through surrogates, or many adopt children heterosexuals discard (the last probably not relative here). So, this argument doesn't fly, either...
> 
> P.S. Your space bar is still wonky in each post, words run together even with the text that isn't c&p. Why is that?


 
The space bar thing cannot befixed. Ignore it.
It is the age of the system here.

As to your other comments. Withoutmodern techniques and attitudes, none of that would be possible so I ignore itout of hand.

Regards
DL


----------



## Greatest I am (Sep 15, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> Well, we are fortunate as a society to have law makers that seem much wiser and more informed than yourself. I know two gay couples that have children, and they are much better parents than most heterosexual couples I've seen...


+ 1 Regards DL


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 15, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> It is not statisticallysignificant as the numbers have remained in those lower realms forever.
> 
> Who said it was unnatural?
> 
> ...


How is the DNA damaged? How have you figured out what scientists haven't?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 15, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> The space bar thing cannot befixed. Ignore it.
> It is the age of the system here.
> 
> As to your other comments. Withoutmodern techniques and attitudes, none of that would be possible so I ignore itout of hand.
> ...


how is adoption, or having hetero sex to have a child in any way modern . . .only two ways are modern and that's artificial and implanted eggs/surrogate eggs 

i find your reasoning contrived and self serving . . . .but to be honest most of what you say makes little to no logical sense based on what is currently known and accepted theories on genetics and genetics expression, as well as genetic traits and their implications on society


----------



## thecoolman (Sep 15, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> Sick and immoral according to who? You? So what? Why should they, or the rest of us, care what you think? Everyone deserves a chance to pursue happiness, that's in our Declaration of Independence. They are teaching their children to be effective, happy moral individuals. There's nothing immoral about two people in a committed relationship showing affection for one another, regardless of the icky feelings it may give _you_. It's not about you, it's about them. Ignorance and bigotry has a long history in this country, luckily that zeitgeist is evolving toward enlightenment and away from the fear-based, neanderthal thinking of the dark/bronze ages. Come, please join the rest of us in the 21st century...


No its not just me its millions and millions of Americans who think it. Secondly I never said gays cant be in a relationship so don't twist it. They can do what ever they want except adopt kids in many states because like me millions of Americans don't believe they should be raising kids do to there sick and twisted behavior. Having a opinion on someones immoral behavior or protecting kids is not bigotry. Your ignorance and denial is pathetic .


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 15, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> No its not just me its millions and millions of Americans who think it. Secondly I never said gays cant be in a relationship so don't twist it. They can do what ever they want except adopt kids in many states because like me millions of Americans don't believe they should be raising kids do to there sick and twisted behavior. Having a opinion on someones immoral behavior or protecting kids is not bigotry. Your ignorance and denial is pathetic .


Millions of Americans believe all sorts of erroneous things, that's the bigotry and ignorance I was referring to in my last post. Millions of Americans also thought owning slaves was okay, that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, that blacks should be segregated, etc.. Most don't this century, that's why I referred to the peoples' thought as becoming more enlightened. You don't believe they should be raising kids, that is based on your erroneous thought process, bigotry or fear of what you don't understand, it is certainly not based in science - 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/05/gay-couples-children-happier_n_3388498.html

http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html

If you, and the millions of other Americans, want to remain ignorant of the facts, that's too bad, but it doesn't make you correct. If you have empirical evidence that homosexuals make bad parents, or shouldn't raise children, from a credible source (not from outdated or religious reasons, but scientific ones) please present your links. Otherwise, please educate yourself and perhaps free yourself from your ignorance and/or bigotry...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 15, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> No its not just me its millions and millions of Americans who think it. Secondly I never said gays cant be in a relationship so don't twist it. They can do what ever they want except adopt kids in many states because like me millions of Americans don't believe they should be raising kids do to there sick and twisted behavior. Having a opinion on someones immoral behavior or protecting kids is not bigotry. Your ignorance and denial is pathetic .


You sound repressed there's alot of projection in your post..


----------



## thecoolman (Sep 15, 2013)

Actually its your erroneous thought process that's flawed. We hear the same line of bs from the queers and 
transvestites in San Fransisco who are allowed to parade naked through the streets in front of school kids. Its 
disturbing that someones upbringing so distorted there mind that they can claim morality is bigotry.
When you grow up maybe you will realize people can disagree with you and not be a bigot. Perhaps you 
should recognize that you have a low level of morality and seek some counseling as it likely may stem from early childhood.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 15, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> Actually its your erroneous thought process that's flawed. We hear the same line of bs from the queers and
> transvestites in San Fransisco who are allowed to parade naked through the streets in front of school kids. Its
> disturbing that someones upbringing so distorted there mind that they can claim morality is bigotry.
> When you grow up maybe you will realize people can disagree with you and not be a bigot. Perhaps you
> should recognize that you have a low level of morality and seek some counseling as it likely may stem from early childhood.


Naked transvestites? How does that work?

You do seem to have a lot of repressed anger there.

Can't be healthy for you


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 15, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> You sound butt hurt.


And there's the projection again


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 15, 2013)

For you coolman







An *aversive reaction to photos of gay couples may stem from a person's authoritarian parents and their own inner conflict with sexual orientation,* researchers have found.
Credit: Andrew Lever | ShutterstockView full size image
Homophobes should consider a little self-reflection, suggests a new study finding those individuals who are most hostile toward gays and hold strong anti-gay views may themselves have same-sex desires, albeit undercover ones.
The prejudice of homophobia may also stem from authoritarian parents, particularly those with homophobic views as well, the researchers added.
"*This study shows that if you are feeling that kind of visceral reaction to an out-group, ask yourself, 'Why*?'" co-author Richard Ryan, a professor of psychology at the University of Rochester, said in a statement. "*Those intense emotions should serve as a call to self-reflection
*http://www.livescience.com/19563-homophobia-hidden-homosexuals.html

What is it that makes you so angry coolman?


----------



## thecoolman (Sep 15, 2013)

You sound as messed up in the brain as a terrorist crying islamophobia when 
people disagree with them. Pathetic again! Trying to call people a name that disagree with you.. very child like at best.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 15, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> You sound as messed up in the brain as a terrorist crying islamophobia when
> people disagree with them. Pathetic again! Trying to call people a name that disagree with you.. very child like at best.


What name did I call you?

I just asked why your so angry


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 15, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> Well I am not angry a bit. You can beat off to gay porn all day for all i care.
> Just remember as we were discussing gay adoption is illegal in lots of America We have to always protect the children.


Protect the children from what?

You say your not angry yet your last few posts looked to have you seething in them

If your unaware of that I'd suggest counciling..


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 15, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> Americans don't believe they should be raising kids do to there <strong>sick and twisted behavior. Having a opinion on someones immoral behavior or protecting kids is not bigotry. Your ignorance and denial is pathetic .</strong>


<br>
<br><br>


thecoolman said:


> Your <strong>pathetic ranting gay demeanor and b.s just scream queer.</strong> I don't care you can come out of the closet.<br>
> i wont pick on you. Just hope you dont try to adopt in our state.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> ...


<br>
<br>


thecoolman said:


> <strong>You sound as messed up in the brain as a terrorist crying islamophobia when <br>
> people disagree with them. Pathetic again! Trying to call people a name that disagree with you</strong>.. very child like at best.


<br>
<br>


thecoolman said:


> <strong>Well I am not angry a bit</strong>. You can beat off to gay porn all day for all i care.<br>
> Just remember as we were discussing gay adoption is illegal in lots of America We have to always protect the children.


<br>
<br>


ginjawarrior said:


> Protect the children from what?<br>
> <br>
> <strong>You say your not angry yet your last few posts looked to have you seething in them<br>
> <br>
> If your unaware of that I'd suggest counciling..</strong>


<br>
<br>


thecoolman said:


> If you think that I would suggest detox.


<br>
&nbsp;<br>Of course your perfectly calm no sign of any ranting at all...


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Sep 15, 2013)

and so.... another thread dies a troll ridden death.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 15, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> Actually its your erroneous thought process that's flawed. We hear the same line of bs from the queers and
> transvestites in San Fransisco who are allowed to parade naked through the streets in front of school kids. Its
> disturbing that someones upbringing so distorted there mind that they can claim morality is bigotry.
> When you grow up maybe you will realize people can disagree with you and not be a bigot. Perhaps you
> should recognize that you have a low level of morality and seek some counseling as it likely may stem from early childhood.


I've proven my point complete with credible links to peer reviewed studies on the subject, you have provided nothing but hot, bigoted air. I have science to back up my point, you have nothing but your anger, fear and ignorance. This is plain for everyone to see, you lose...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 15, 2013)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> and so.... another thread dies a troll ridden death.


That's a bit melodramatic?


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Sep 15, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> That's a bit melodramatic?


ya I know,I say that merely because I see way to many threads go from intelectualy productive to shit,because of dumb people who are bigoted and just want to make nonesense.Sorry to say.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 15, 2013)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> ya I know,I say that merely because I see way to many threads go from intelectualy productive to shit,because of dumb people who are bigoted and just want to make nonesense.Sorry to say.


Has it been that intellectually productive? After page 2 it's just been going over exactly same thing

Trolling the angrier bigots has high productive value IMO


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 15, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> Your pathetic ranting gay demeanor and b.s just scream queer. I don't care you can come out of the closet.
> i wont pick on you. Just hope you dont try to adopt in our state.
> 
> 
> ...


Dr. Tracye Hansen (your article is based on her own), is not a credible source and has been widely criticized for her biased, anti-gay propaganda - http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201203050002 - Perhaps you know her?

WND itself seems to be a biased, right-wing site with christian backing. They have published many specious articles regard 9/11 and Obama birther conspiracies. This is why I asked for scientific peer reviewed sources like I presented, not this opinionated, bigoted tripe...


----------



## thump easy (Sep 15, 2013)

Yo i cant see the video??? whats the name of it?? im not for gay or agenst it me personaly if wood looks my way i become bruce lee and i block that shit like this.[video=youtube_share;MIL1FVqLVq8]http://youtu.be/MIL1FVqLVq8[/video]as long as i dont get a big penis pointing my way im cool. lolz this pole was ingeneered to block penises from all angles.. hahaha


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Sep 15, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Has it been that intellectually productive? After page 2 it's just been going over exactly same thing
> 
> Trolling the angrier bigots has high productive value IMO


good point,.The thread has become toxic, and Im only expressing an opinion ,thats all.


----------



## thump easy (Sep 15, 2013)

lolz you guys didnt like my video???


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 15, 2013)

thump easy said:


> im joking lolz i living in palm springs dude rain bow capital lolz im joking.. well good night.. this could be a very touchy subject lolz im kidding dude i live around alot of gay men and women i not gay never have been but im just kidding lol im not kiding about gay men trying to get into my pants its happend before i just say no thanks i love breast and pussy.. and go about my day but i have had one gay male fucken come on to me were it wasnt cool at all.. i wrote about it long time ago on this forum.. but my personal opionion i dont have one other than for me id like to just block it like bruce lee the male genatilia.. lolz this is too funny im sorry guys i will stop trolling..


keep looking I'm sure your find some who'll pay good money for you to slap it about like that


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 15, 2013)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> good point,.The thread has become toxic, and Im only expressing an opinion ,thats all.


It was always going to be toxic though, it wouldn't be worthy of a thread otherwise


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 16, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> Actually its your erroneous thought process that's flawed. We hear the same line of bs from the queers and
> transvestites in San Fransisco who are allowed to parade naked through the streets in front of school kids. Its
> disturbing that someones upbringing so distorted there mind that they can claim morality is bigotry.
> When you grow up maybe you will realize people can disagree with you and not be a bigot. Perhaps you
> should recognize that you have a low level of morality and seek some counseling as it likely may stem from early childhood.


Personally I don't think anyone should be allowed to parade around naked, unless it's at a nude beach. 

Regardless, your point is still moot because you're condemning an entire group of people for the actions of a few. That's the epitome of a bigot. Their lifestyle doesn't affect you, and if it makes you uncomfortable that's your fucking problem, not theirs. If a sense of morality is the basis for 'good' actions, what 'good' comes from homosexuals not being able to have kids? To spare the kid from seeing two men or women from holding hands, or kissing? Please....

It's absurd, and the fact that you can't see the absurdity speaks volumes about you.

As far as I can see, the only thing immoral here is you. You're a hateful prick that would rather see children suffer than be with a loving, functional family.


----------



## thecoolman (Sep 16, 2013)

*Regardless, your point is still moot because you're condemning an entire group of people for the actions of a few... quote"

**... Never condemed anyone stop with the lies

**"If a sense of morality is the basis for 'good' actions, what 'good' comes from homosexuals not being able to have kids?"

**...........Kids should not be exposed to this perversion it 
**also alters there chances of being a normal heterosexual

*
*
"As far as I can see, the only thing immoral here is you. You're a hateful prick"

Half of America agrees with me so you should learn to respect others views then 
you don't have to be so but hurt all the time.. got that prick?

*


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 17, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> ... Never condemed anyone stop with the lies





> They can do what ever they want except adopt kids in many states because like me millions of Americans don't believe they should be raising kids do to there sick and twisted behavior.


Calling an entire group of people immoral or sick and twisted, is considered condemnation. You're stating they're wrong, and their actions shouldn't be accepted by the public. That is being a bigot, you bigot.



> *...........Kids should not be exposed to this perversion it
> **also alters there chances of being a normal heterosexual*


Calling homosexuality a perversion is being a bigot. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it immoral or wrong. Stop watching gay sex and you won't have anything to worry about.


> *Half of America agrees with me so you should learn to respect others views then **
> you don't have to be so but hurt all the time.. got that prick?*


Democracy enables the tyranny of the majority. Also, 85% of Americans believe that Angels are real, so that should tell you how fucking stupid most of America is. _Appealing to the majority_ is also a logical fallacy, and doesn't validate your position regardless of the ignorance of your mistakes. What proof do you have that being raised by gay parents will alter your sexuality? Where is the study that demonstrates your hypothesis? Oh, you don't have one and you're just an uneducated bigot? Thought so....


----------



## sunni (Sep 17, 2013)

i was raised by gay parents and im straight


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 17, 2013)

sunni said:


> i was raised by gay parents and im straight



But how can that be????

If you were raised by gay parents, according to'thecoolman', you should be out engaging in unprotected group-sex with leather clad strangers (of the same sex mind you) while taking the lords name in vain.


----------



## dannown (Sep 17, 2013)

Of course, there's plenty of social animals that simply can't reproduce (think of the worker bees). These little guys don't reproduce but are invaluable to the survival of the species. I'm not saying homosexuals are the worker bees in the hive of humanity, but it's wrong to say that every creature wants to pass on his own genes.

It's also bad thinking to say "If we were all of that ilk we would go extinct." Try to apply that to some other characteristics humans have. Being male? If we were all that way we'd go extinct! Males are defective! (Please note that I'm not necessarily saying males aren't defective, I'm just trying to point out that this is a pretty shoddy though experiment.)


----------



## dannown (Sep 17, 2013)

Ooops! I didn't realize this thread had already degenerated. Remember, they will know we are christians by our love.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 17, 2013)

dannown said:


> Of course, there's plenty of social animals that simply can't reproduce (think of the worker bees). These little guys don't reproduce but are invaluable to the survival of the species. I'm not saying homosexuals are the worker bees in the hive of humanity, but it's wrong to say that every creature wants to pass on his own genes.
> 
> It's also bad thinking to say "If we were all of that ilk we would go extinct." Try to apply that to some other characteristics humans have. Being male? If we were all that way we'd go extinct! Males are defective! (Please note that I'm not necessarily saying males aren't defective, I'm just trying to point out that this is a pretty shoddy though experiment.)


Nice post, welcome to RIU and +rep...


----------



## thecoolman (Sep 17, 2013)

"*Calling an entire group of people immoral or sick and twisted, is considered condemnation. You're stating they're wrong, and their actions shouldn't be accepted by the public. That is being a bigot, you bigot.*"

....Society dictates morality and a large part of society thinks its immoral. I agree.


*"Democracy enables the tyranny of the majority. Also, 85% of Americans believe that Angels are real, so that should tell you how fucking stupid most of America is. Appealing to the majority is also a logical fallacy, and doesn't validate your position regardless of the ignorance of your mistakes. What proof do you have that being raised by gay parents will alter your sexuality? Where is the study that demonstrates your hypothesis? Oh, you don't have one and you're just an uneducated bigot? Thought so..."

.*...Now you have proven yourself to be not only a classic bigot but a pos hypocrite. 
It doesn't matter if you agree with Christians but your intolerance of others ideas
and opinions have proven you both a classic bigot and a hypocrite.

http://homosexualityandscience.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/research-shows-children-raised-by-homosexual-pare Of course its all common sense kids do best with both a mom and a dad.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 17, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> "*Calling an entire group of people immoral or sick and twisted, is considered condemnation. You're stating they're wrong, and their actions shouldn't be accepted by the public. That is being a bigot, you bigot.*"
> 
> ....Society dictates morality and a large part of society thinks its immoral. I agree.
> 
> ...


Not so fast, it seems as if that study you linked to not only by-passed the peer review process, but that three of the six reviewers had anti-gay agendas - http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controversial-gay-parenting-study-is-severely-flawed-journals-audit-finds/30255

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zinnia-jones/regnerus-gay-parents_b_1725277.html


----------



## thecoolman (Sep 17, 2013)

Now we all now if its in the huffington post/lbgt times it cant be trusted. After saying that its almost funny you try to discredit it from a blog by zinia jones a radical lgbt activist atheist/hard core lesbian activist...LOL

The study has been reviewed and is probably the largest and best ever done
With that being said its just common sense.

An exhaustive pre-investigation was conducted to determine whether a more comprehensive one would be necessary &#8212; this includes hiring *independent consultant *Alan Price, who formerly ran the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to oversee the process.

After sequestering all of Regnerus&#8217;s correspondence and conducting both written and oral interviews with him and his accuser, Research Integrity Officer Robert Peterson wrote in an Aug. 24 memorandum, &#8220;None of the allegations of scientific misconduct put forth &#8230; were substantiated either by physical data, written materials, or by information provided during the interviews. Since no evidence was provided to indicate that the behavior at issue rose to a level of scientific misconduct, no formal investigation is warranted.&#8221; (2)
Regnerus was vindicated and cleared by University of Texas of all allegations. (3)
The unscientific backlash fails to undermine the significance of Regnerus&#8217;s study.

There is lots of bs attempts by the lgbt community to discredit it as they don't care about the truth. Kids do best when raised by both a man and a woman! Its just common sense.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 18, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> Now we all now if its in the huffington post/lbgt times it cant be trusted. After saying that its almost funny you try to discredit it from a blog by zinia jones a radical lgbt activist atheist/hard core lesbian activist...LOL
> 
> The study has been reviewed and is probably the largest and best ever done
> With that being said its just common sense.
> ...


You're right, that article is probably biased. Please let me know what you think of my first link in my last post - 

*http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolato...it-finds/30255*


----------



## thecoolman (Sep 18, 2013)

Its biased as well the lgbt activists are at it again.http://www.nas.org/articles/the_campaign_to_discredit_regnerus_and_the_assault_on_peer_review

The university study I referenced is the largest and most scientific one ever conducted and by a large margin at that.


----------



## Grojak (Sep 18, 2013)

http://homosexualityandscience.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/research-shows-children-raised-by-homosexual-parents-have-more-problems-than-those-raised-by-married-heterosexual-parents/

"According to latest research, children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by married heterosexual parents to *suffer from poor impulse control, depression and suicidal thoughts, require mental health therapy; *identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana."


The highlighted section I do believe but it has nothing to do with who their parents are but has everything to do with what their parents are. It's the intolerant people like_ thecoolman _who run around spreading their hate based "facts" and teaching their children the same kind of hate that are the problems with kids of same sex couples. Until we live in a tolerant, openminded society these kids will have the same problems but it's again not from parenting it's from bullying at school, fuck I would have had a heyday back in school if I had a same sex kid in my class, not my fault I was raised to hate but unlike some I matures, I grew as a person and no longer see the world from those same hate filled eyes. 

We don't need to do any type of research to find the intolerant bigots of the world, thats simple, but the hate mongers will always try to hide behind "science and data" argue their hate. Follow the money and you'll find the agenda of those funding any poll or research. 

[h=1]Mark Regnerus, University Of Texas Professor....
 that is all you need to read to know this is a republican, christian funded research that will not accept any results that differ from. Reading this guys bullshit... that he only found 2 Lesbian couples that had a lengthy relationship, I'm guessing all research was done in Texas... why not it represents the other 49 states perfectly LOL. [/h]
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/30/1110591/regnerus-admits-gay-parenting/ Regenserus even says his study is fucked up because of wording he used and that.

"Regnerus even admits &#8220;this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad,&#8221; because he knows has no foundation on which to make such a claim. This was a study about unstable couples, possibly in sham marriages, who may have dabbled in same-sex relationships outside of their original marriage at a time when there was no recognition for same-sex couples anywhere in the country. In others words, the study&#8217;s results have _zero_ implication for conversations in 2012 about out, committed same-sex couples who are already raising children."


Hate on brother, hate on!!!


----------



## Grojak (Sep 18, 2013)

A copy of the survey questions would be nice to read... see how things were worded, questions asked.. anyone can draw conclusions from data but a veteran knows how to manipulate that data to sound "better"


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 18, 2013)

Grojak said:


> http://homosexualityandscience.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/research-shows-children-raised-by-homosexual-parents-have-more-problems-than-those-raised-by-married-heterosexual-parents/
> 
> "According to latest research, children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by married heterosexual parents to *suffer from poor impulse control, depression and suicidal thoughts, require mental health therapy; *identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana."
> 
> ...



"Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution&#8212;a think tank&#8212;whose mission is to formulate and *promote conservative public policies* based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, *traditional American values*, and a strong national defense. We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles. Our vision is to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish."



So basically it's a bunch of Christians with Agenda's, and a hate for anything anti-bible. Seems very reputable... lol


----------



## Grojak (Sep 18, 2013)

^^^ exactly


----------



## sunni (Sep 18, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> But how can that be????
> 
> If you were raised by gay parents, according to'thecoolman', you should be out engaging in unprotected group-sex with leather clad strangers (of the same sex mind you) while taking the lords name in vain.


lol my family is very strict roman catholic my mom is a lesbian and her sister is one as well, but their parents and grandparents still loved them the same my family shows nothing but love
now that we have little kids in our family they see it as no different than mom and dad is truly an amazing thing that they have no hate or prejiduce against my mom and her wife they just call them auntie and zia (aunt in italian) theyre not taught that its right or wrong or taught about the specifics of the relationship justlike how they arent taught about the specifics of their parents love life, they just see mom and dad love each other, auntie and zia do too

its beautiful really


----------



## sunni (Sep 18, 2013)

and before any anti gay people go on about how we can "expose" this to children, children dont watch their parents making out or having sex and they dont see that from my parents either, we are not exposing them to anything but a wonderful loving family and thats what children need gay OR straight , a loving family is what children need


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Sep 18, 2013)

If you were raised being taught that gays are an abomination, that is what you will think.

Uneducated, indoctrinated, mentally abused, that is what you will stand for.

There are over 1,500 recorded animals across the world which are homosexual, including human animals. Think about that, take it in, real deep. 




Fucking stupidity, lack of empathy and understanding, too many humans in this world like that, makes me sick. Fucking assholes.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 19, 2013)

What's really disgusting is people attempting to disguise their bigotry as some sort of moral high ground.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 20, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> Whats really fucked up is intolerant assholes like you. Anyone that disagrees with you must be full of hate.
> No one can have morals different than yours. Your head is stuck so far up your ass its not surprising you cant think.


Intolerant? Being intolerant of someone else's intolerance is completely acceptable, you dingus. 

Dummy doesn't accept gays - intolerant.

Person who accepts gays, doesn't accept dummies non accepting perspective - tolerant of gays, intolerant of dummy assholes intolerance

That's how it works in the real world where adults live and accept people based on who they are and not on their sexuality and who they might love, you intolerant assdouche.

Welcome to the real world


----------



## smokinafatty (Sep 20, 2013)

Or pedophilia... animals don't even consider the age of their fk buddies. (Just rustling some feathers on my fellow animal friends)


----------



## Jerry68W (Sep 20, 2013)

sunni said:


> and before any anti gay people go on about how we can "expose" this to children, children dont watch their parents making out or having sex and they dont see that from my parents either, we are not exposing them to anything but a wonderful loving family and thats what children need gay OR straight , a loving family is what children need


Please don't defend your family to them or anyone else, you don't need to.



I've added a couple names from this thread to my ignore list, and I'd like to take this opportunity to invite anyone who thinks being gay is a defect, or that they need to in some way fight off the gays, PLEASE add me to your ignore list as well.

I am gay. I am married to a great and smart guy whom I love, and our marriage is federally recognized (about fucking time). We are home owners. We are happy and healthy, as well as functioning and contributing members of our community...you know, kinda like "normal" people.

I will not discuss the merits of my existence nor will I answer any gay related questions. I just want the remaining homophobes of RIU to leave me the fuck alone, and I ask that you please do it by adding me to your ignore list if you happen to be a raging homophobe idiot.

Thank you


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 20, 2013)

thecoolman said:


> Whats really fucked up is intolerant assholes like you. Anyone that disagrees with you must be full of hate.
> No one can have morals different than yours. Your head is stuck so far up your ass its not surprising you cant think.



You're fucking right I'm intolerant of hateful bigots like you. I'm also intolerant of murder, rape, child abuse and many other terrible things.

Also, you can have differing opinions all you want, as long as you're not denigrating an entire group of people. Then, I'm going to call you out for being a bigoted asshole, and bitch slap you with some knowledge.

People are also free to disagree with me. Chances are I probably won't think they're "full of hate", unless of course they're being hateful to someone or a group of people.... you know, like you!



P.S. - You might want to pull your skirt down, your 'Christian Values' are showing....


----------



## Grojak (Sep 20, 2013)

So I've sucked 2 cocks... I'm not gay though I'm happily married and give it to my wife anytime she lets me but I fantasize about jerking off a guy sometimes!! I would probably play with a guy but only if my wife is present, oh yea she is bi also, we've gotten down with a couple of women together our modo is it's not cheating if we're both there.

LOL you bigot fucks wish you could have a 3some.... I've lived it multiple times


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Sep 21, 2013)

I wish i was gay, i'm jealous, that way i could fuck ANYONE i wanted. Now im stuck with just fucking girls, which is ok with me... sucks i can't just choose to become gay or i would.


----------



## Jerry68W (Sep 21, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> I wish i was gay, i'm jealous, that way i could fuck ANYONE i wanted. Now im stuck with just fucking girls, which is ok with me... sucks i can't just choose to become gay or i would.


I think what you're looking for is bi. If you were gay, you'd be "stuck" with just dudes like I am (obvious pun not actually intended but there it is). 
There are some hot chicks though, so I know exactly what you're saying. Bi is best probably, it's just that few of us are that genetically perfect (in terms of sexual orientation anyway)


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2013)

Thought this was suiting....


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 22, 2013)

[youtube]Xd2PGkDecT8[/youtube]

Jesus loves me 
But not my wife 
Not my nigger friends 
Or their nigger lives 
But jesus loves me 
Dat for sure 
'Cause the bible tell me so 

Read your bible good and well 
Don't forget about that apple spell 
Don't fall in the wishing well 
Wishing for heaven and gettin' hell 
Wash behind your ears don't smell 
Cover them freckles don't ask don't tell 
Kiss your papa but not too long 
Hold his hand 
Don't do no wrong 

Jesus loves me 
But not my wife 
Not my nigger friends 
Or their nigger lives 
But jesus loves me 
Dat for sure 
'Cause the bible tell me so 

Hush don't cry 
Dry them tears 
Time'll wash away all them years 
Scar or a bruise 
Pick and choose 
When you're all grown up 
You'll have the blues 
Life'll give you that wedding ring 
Fancy cars and diamond things 
You best believe in Jesus' way 
And never fall asleep forgetting to pray 

Jesus loves me 
But not my wife 
Not my nigger friends 
Or their nigger lives 
But jesus loves me 
Dat for sure 
'Cause the bible tell me so 

'Cause the bible tell me so


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 23, 2013)

I'm just posting because no one else has for the last few days, wish I had something to say...


----------



## GreyLord (Sep 27, 2013)

Fazer1rlg said:


> I don't think it's a normal condition when kids become molested and hurt as a child by same sex there is a high probability for them to turn out like that as well. And homosexuality isn't normal nor right, them people have been confused into thinking its okay.


What are you trying to say in that 1st sentence? Do you mean that priests & religious clerics are drawn to the church as a vocation because they were molested?
Growing up in a 'house of the lord' we were taught that homosexuality was an illness & an abomination in the eyes of god. At 15 I was on the street [I was thrown out of home because I finally stood up to years of floggings from my father the preacher] small, hairless & snow-blonde.
In the following years I was shown more respectful, kindness & concern from 2 older gay men than all christians put together. I didn't even know they were gay [although they were very cheerful chaps haha] for several years. It was thanks in particular to these decent guys that I learnt that gays are really no different than anyone else & most importantly that a poof is a poof & a pedophile is a pedophile. From my experience one can find more kiddy-fiddlers in a church than any gay bar. [In fact my 1st winter the gays at one bar set me up a bed out the back & let me sleep until 6am when the cleaners were locking up. I felt so safe sleeping there - god help any sicko who tried to harm me]. During that time on the street I was never propositioned by an openly gay man-not once. On the other hand I was offered money at least a dozen times by mostly church going married men.
Homosexuality isn't normal or right? So god made a mistake huh? I think it's 10% of any population is gay. Gee god really is a fuck-up then? 
I was asked to talk with a friend of a friend once because this friend was 'so confused'. I asked 'Ben' what made his dick hard, boys or girls? Ben - 'boys'. Me - "well your dick isn't confused, why are you?" haha. It's just the way he was 'made'. He likes boys, so what? What two consenting people do behind closed doors is none of my concern.
20 odd years ago it wasn't popular to defend gays, so whenever "I hate pooftas" was uttered by some pubescent moron [probably a closet gay] at the local pub I would say "I reckon the more poofs in the world the better" silence would usually fall waiting for an explanation to defend such an outrageous statement, "How do you figure Sno?" they would ask "Well then there's more girls for me" haha. The best thing about going out to bars with gay friends as a young fella was they ALWAYS found an attractive women who wanted to take me home 
Those who are gay are BORN gay. Most gays know from a young age that they're attracted to the same sex [regardless of what selective religious 'studies' show]. Get over it christians, god made gays just as he made you & me. Just a part of the complex cosmos to which we all belong. Peace.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 27, 2013)

GreyLord said:


> What are you trying to say in that 1st sentence? Do you mean that priests & religious clerics are drawn to the church as a vocation because they were molested?
> Growing up in a 'house of the lord' we were taught that homosexuality was an illness & an abomination in the eyes of god. At 15 I was on the street [I was thrown out of home because I finally stood up to years of floggings from my father the preacher] small, hairless & snow-blonde.
> In the following years I was shown more respectful, kindness & concern from 2 older gay men than all christians put together. I didn't even know they were gay [although they were very cheerful chaps haha] for several years. It was thanks in particular to these decent guys that I learnt that gays are really no different than anyone else & most importantly that a poof is a poof & a pedophile is a pedophile. From my experience one can find more kiddy-fiddlers in a church than any gay bar. [In fact my 1st winter the gays at one bar set me up a bed out the back & let me sleep until 6am when the cleaners were locking up. I felt so safe sleeping there - god help any sicko who tried to harm me]. During that time on the street I was never propositioned by an openly gay man-not once. On the other hand I was offered money at least a dozen times by mostly church going married men.
> Homosexuality isn't normal or right? So god made a mistake huh? I think it's 10% of any population is gay. Gee god really is a fuck-up then?
> ...


I would think that it is 10% of a given group that would protest in that way. A lot of people here use the term "Christian" like it is some catch-all term that means we wave the same flag. The truth is, I've seen openly gay men in a church that were accepting communion. The priest was aware of those men's preferences. Made no difference to them.

If you separate religious affiliation from an idiot, you're left with an idiot, nonetheless.


----------



## GreyLord (Sep 27, 2013)

Sorry what protest? Your not very clear. 
When I use the term 'christian' I'm usually referring to what is generally believed or accepted by christians in general. Now if your saying that 10% of christians are accepting of gays then gee, the church is becoming really progressive huh?
The attitude of the catholic church, for instance [your example not mine ] is bewildering considering how many priests who reside in the vatican are practicing homosexuals. [according to a retired priest who LIVED & worked in the vatican for 30years said that he knew 50% of the priests were practicing homosexuals but suspected that the real figure was more likely 80%] And what does mother church do about the hypocrisy that it's swimming in? Nothing. Business [ching ching] as usual.
That 1st paragraph really didn't make sense so I'll just .................


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 28, 2013)

GreyLord said:


> When I use the term 'christian' I'm usually referring to what is generally believed or accepted by christians in general.


Example?...........


----------



## GreyLord (Sep 28, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> Example?...........


I thought that was self explanatory. 
That gays are sinning when they express their sexuality. How's that for an example?


----------



## racerboy71 (Sep 30, 2013)

MayorCojones said:


> I'm straight, but I've found a new way to jerk off; let my gay friends blow me. I've got several guys in my phone contacts and there is always at least one that is free to get me off. I don't think homosexuality is unnatural... it's a result of nature, so by definition.... it's natural. If you mean, unnatural as synonymous with normative then I cannot say. All I know is it took me a couple of years of getting offers from my gay friends that I finally gave in. It wasn't natural FOR ME. I had to cover my face and think of a girl if I was going to stay hard. After a while, I got comfortable with it and realized that guys give much better head than women, they almost never say no, and believe it or not... none of them have ever asked for me to reciprocate. I recommend you guys give it a go. It's not uncommon at all. I think for ever gay friend I have, they each usually have 3-7 straight guys they blow on a fairly regular basis.


 those 3-7 other friends aren't straight if they're getting blown by another dude.. just saying..


----------



## racerboy71 (Sep 30, 2013)

MayorCojones said:


> People have an amazing capacity to compartmentalize. Not sure if that is the most appropriate word, but whatever. lol
> I think straight guys, with a little effort and courage, can become desensitized to it and enjoy the benefits.


 this would at minimum make you bi.. 

i'm not saying there's anything wrong with it mind you, just simply pointing out what i think to be the misuse of the word straight is all..


----------



## GreyLord (Sep 30, 2013)

MayorCojones said:


> I'm straight, but I've found a new way to jerk off; let my gay friends blow me. I've got several guys in my phone contacts and there is always at least one that is free to get me off. I don't think homosexuality is unnatural... it's a result of nature, so by definition.... it's natural. If you mean, unnatural as synonymous with normative then I cannot say. All I know is it took me a couple of years of getting offers from my gay friends that I finally gave in. It wasn't natural FOR ME. I had to cover my face and think of a girl if I was going to stay hard. After a while, I got comfortable with it and realized that guys give much better head than women, they almost never say no, and believe it or not... none of them have ever asked for me to reciprocate. I recommend you guys give it a go. It's not uncommon at all. I think for ever gay friend I have, they each usually have 3-7 straight guys they blow on a fairly regular basis.


Dude where do I start? You are either bi-sexual or a closet homosexual.......just saying. All the signs are there....gaining erections for men.........insisting your REALLY straight while engaging in oral sex with multiple male partners.......urging other men to follow your example........hanging out with gays...over-compensating with your avatar [butch with a dash of femininity] lol.
Btw, the other 3-7 'friends' are also gay.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 30, 2013)

MayorCojones said:


> Lol, Well as far as my avatar goes, I'm glad I didn't use the effeminate butler from Mr. Deeds because then you REALLY might have an argument.
> I don't think having gay friends makes you gay as much as it makes you "not homophobic".
> Gaining the erections takes an effort, which is one reason I don't think it makes someone gay necessarily. Perhaps this is evidence of the "fact".
> I don't engage in oral sex... I just get it.
> ...


I say rock on, man. lol

If you can stay hard with a dude sucking on yer wang, you've just upped the game my friend. Virtually eliminating the need to masturbate.


----------



## GreyLord (Sep 30, 2013)

Should have been clearer M C. Correct, hanging with gays does not make one gay. Hanging with guys to get your dick sucked by a guy IS gay.
Although I do have some sympathy for guys unwilling to admit their homosexuality, being in the closet is usually unhealthy.
You seek the company of men to engage in sexual relations, nothing wrong with that, but by definition that makes you, at the very least, bi-sexual  Just saying.......

Peace.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Sep 30, 2013)

Beefbisquit said:


> I say rock on, man. lol
> 
> If you can stay hard with a dude sucking on yer wang, you've just upped the game my friend. Virtually eliminating the need to masturbate.


You only live once. Might as well live lasciviously.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 30, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> You only live once. Might as well live lascivioushly.


Gorilla edit means no harm. Had to be done. Fits nice with the last few posts, that does.


----------



## MojoRison (Sep 30, 2013)

Kind of funny really, there was time when DNA didn't exist in our vocabulary and now it's seems to the root of all evil.


----------



## Greatest I am (Oct 1, 2013)

MojoRison said:


> Kind of funny really, there was time when DNA didn't exist in our vocabulary and now it's seems to the root of all evil.


If moral people would have spoken out sooner in the West,gays would not have had to suffer the way they have and still do in some places,--- because good people are still sitting on their hands and tongues.

For evil to grow all good people need do is nothing.

If Christians had not changed their customs, gays would notlikely even be an issue except in Islam.

http://christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/whensamesexmarriagewasachristianrite.html

Regards
DL


----------



## MojoRison (Oct 1, 2013)

I for one feel that humans are drunk on power, it's as if some think that having a moral center equates superiority. 



You are young, my son, and, as the years go by, time will change and even reverse many of your present opinions. Refrain therefore awhile from setting yourself up as a judge of the highest matters.*Plato*, _Dialogues, Theatetus_


----------



## desert dude (Oct 10, 2013)

Lurkdewitt said:


> Being gay isn't something that you decide one day, and sexual abuse and certainly not homosexuality on TV does not encourage being curious with the same sex. I grew up around my sister watching the l word, and broke back mountain and other shows of the like, and I never wanted to do anything homosexual, because well, I am not gay. This isn't a religious or social issue, its a step over the line into personal freedom and morality. People need to realize that being homosexual is just as natural as being asexual and heterosexual. Everyone is different and to be honest I find it silly that people care so much about stopping two people in love from being able to share the same benefits of heterosexual couples. Whether you think being gay is morally wrong based on your religious or your social morals only really matter to people with your same morals. And let's face it, everyone has different opinions on what's right and wrong. Who are we to say someone is weird for doing something that is natural to them? Just my .02.


Yeah, I agree. In a nutshell, you simply are what you are when it comes to sexual preferences. I am hetero. When I look at an attractive woman, I respond physically and there is nothing I can do to stop that. Sexuality is not a choice, it is genetic. Punishing people for their genetics is just dumb.


----------



## Greatest I am (Oct 11, 2013)

MojoRison said:


> I for one feel that humans are drunk on power, it's as if some think that having a moral center equates superiority.


 Are you saying that one with a moral position or center is inferior to one without a moral position or center? Are they at the same mental level? Explain further please. Regards DL


----------



## MojoRison (Oct 11, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Are you saying that one with a moral position or center is inferior to one without a moral position or center? Are they at the same mental level? Explain further please. Regards DL


To say that someone objects because of their morals is understandable but to say that their moral stand point is superior, is fraught with danger. Morals are a cultural aspect of life and differ greatly depending on who and where they are obtained.

Used solely as an example, the crusades and the ideology behind them were based on the moral code of those who had faith in a certain religion, feeling morally superior to others who believed otherwise, men were set forth to conquer and change those who's moral code was differing from theirs.


----------



## Greatest I am (Oct 11, 2013)

MojoRison said:


> To say that someone objects because of their morals is understandable but to say that their moral stand point is superior, is fraught with danger. Morals are a cultural aspect of life and differ greatly depending on who and where they are obtained.
> 
> Used solely as an example, the crusades and the ideology behind them were based on the moral code of those who had faith in a certain religion, feeling morally superior to others who believed otherwise, men were set forth to conquer and change those who's moral code was differing from theirs.


Fraught with danger.

Let me give one of the few worthy wisdom saying fromscriptures.

Proverbs 3:12 
For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father theson in whom he delighteth.

Be they fraught with danger or not, imagine where mankindwould be if we did not correct each other&#8217;s mistakes.

I agree that we have misused our correcting ability in thepast but if as a general rule we did not do so, we would still be living in caves.

Reciprocity is a moral tenet. If you would not like to becorrected when wrong then that is what prompted your view.

I prefer correction even if it hurts the ego than to gothrough life doing the wrong or immoral thing.

I, unlike religions, do not take that notion of correctingto the point of killing. A dead person cannot take correction. 
We should both hate what religions have done but we shouldnot throw out the baby with the bath water.

Regards
DL


----------



## MojoRison (Oct 11, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Fraught with danger.
> 
> Let me give one of the few worthy wisdom saying fromscriptures.
> 
> ...


Your life has had religious doctrine involved {from what I can gather here}, the morals you now posse were obtained from that perspective and find any opposing that doctrine worthy of question. Not to find an answer as to why they differ in opinion but to shun any and all individuals who may think otherwise and try to persuade them to see the error of their ways...hence the constant biblical references

I'm not a scholar nor am I religious, just a man.


----------



## smokinafatty (Oct 11, 2013)

Yay let's all start sucking dick.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 11, 2013)

maybe you need to jsut go back to the tit and try to learn how to grow up all over agian


----------



## Greatest I am (Oct 11, 2013)

MojoRison said:


> Your life has had religious doctrine involved {from what I can gather here}, the morals you now posse were obtained from that perspective and find any opposing that doctrine worthy of question. Not to find an answer as to why they differ in opinion but to shun any and all individuals who may think otherwise and try to persuade them to see the error of their ways...hence the constant biblical references
> 
> I'm not a scholar nor am I religious, just a man.


You are a man yes and a short one as what I put went rightover your head.

Too much wrong in your view for me to bother correcting you.

I see where you get your reluctance to correct.

Regards
DL


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 11, 2013)

MojoRison said:


> *To say that someone objects because of their morals is understandable but to say that their moral stand point is superior, is fraught with danger. Morals are a cultural aspect of life and differ greatly depending on who and where they are obtained.*
> 
> Used solely as an example, the crusades and the ideology behind them were based on the moral code of those who had faith in a certain religion, feeling morally superior to others who believed otherwise, men were set forth to conquer and change those who's moral code was differing from theirs.


Start at 3:40 -

[video=youtube_share;NhvhNZC51gY]http://youtu.be/NhvhNZC51gY[/video]


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 12, 2013)

Morality can be (and should be) scientifically deduced, agreed

I tried arguing that point with a coworker recently, he just kept saying there was value in religious morals, even after slavery was brought up.. 

What I gained from that interaction was that religious people (he said he wasn't "religious", too! He just believed in a "higher power") are obviously _still_ religious for a reason.. 2013.. anyone religious _at this point_&#8203; doesn't need anything to be said for them, they're either lazy or ignorant, no excuses.


----------



## MojoRison (Oct 12, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> You are a man yes and a short one as what I put went rightover your head.
> 
> Too much wrong in your view for me to bother correcting you.
> 
> ...


I have no qualms with being corrected, in fact I implore most to append my mistakes. I know nothing and will learn all I can from those individuals who have in their lives gained insight where I have failed to see. If you are so inclined, omit my errors and substitute accordingly, something more fitting to your moral code...wink wink nudge nudge


----------



## Greatest I am (Oct 12, 2013)

MojoRison said:


> I have no qualms with being corrected, in fact I implore most to append my mistakes. I know nothing and will learn all I can from those individuals who have in their lives gained insight where I have failed to see. If you are so inclined, omit my errors and substitute accordingly, something more fitting to your moral code...wink wink nudge nudge


 Just take all the assumptions out and leave the rest and I will speak to it. That exercise is what you need to do for yourself. Just leave what you know as facts. Regards DL


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 12, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Just take all the assumptions out and leave the rest and I will speak to it. That exercise is what you need to do for yourself. Just leave what you know as facts. Regards DL


known facts are known to change and you sir have provided nothing in the way of facts . . only your observations and acute opinion given to you by a dead document thast contradicts itself book to book


----------



## Greatest I am (Oct 12, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> known facts are known to change and you sir have provided nothing in the way of facts . . only your observations and acute opinion given to you by a dead document thast contradicts itself book to book


That must have been quite a while back. What in the hell are you talking about? I only usually quote the book when using the words against literalists. Regards DL


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Oct 12, 2013)

how can homosexuality be unatural if it exists ? surely for it to exist , it must be natural .


----------



## Greatest I am (Oct 12, 2013)

No argument. It is natural. Regards DL


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Oct 12, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> No argument. It is natural. Regards DL


oh you spoil sport


----------



## Greatest I am (Oct 12, 2013)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> oh you spoil sport


It was not kosher or natural to do this to my hero. I do not mind gays but this has gone too far. I think I will stop supporting the end of discrimination against gays because of this though. Well, ok. I wont but it is a close thing. Regards DL [video=youtube;ea7bj5MsyAU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea7bj5MsyAU[/video]


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 12, 2013)




----------



## MojoRison (Oct 13, 2013)

Greatest I am said:


> Just take all the assumptions out and leave the rest and I will speak to it. That exercise is what you need to do for yourself. Just leave what you know as facts. Regards DL


I am not this persona, this is me playing a part given to me, my true self is still hidden...even from me


----------

