# Isn't Homosexuality Abnormal?



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

Wow, my thread last night asking about the normality of homosexuality was deleted. Even though it generated 15 pages of responses within about 2 hours!

So, here goes again.

After the will to survive, the will to procreate (pass ones genes on) is the greatest natural desire of all mammals. This, then, seems to indicate that homosexuality is abnormal. Or more clearly, it indicates that Mother Nature senses something wrong with homosexuals to the extent that She doesn't want them to procreate.

In fact, I submit that homosexuals are as much abnormal as pedophiles. Thank goodness that neither group procreates as much as normal heterosexuals.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

I mean, don't you think that wolves and coyotes are glad that most rabbits are heterosexual, like nature intended all mammals to be?


----------



## Total Head (May 10, 2012)

rabbits do not exist solely to feed wolves and coyotes any more than people exist solely to feed sharks and tigers. by your logic we should all be throwing ourselves out of trees in the jungle to do our humanly duty.


----------



## lokie (May 10, 2012)

Round two!


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

homosexuality is a completely normal variation of human sexuality, albeit less common.

just like having red hair is a normal variation of human hair color, albeit less common.

ascribing intention and will to mother nature like you did is retarded. mother nature is indifferent.

go home, kiddo.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> homosexuality is a completely normal variation of human sexuality, albeit less common.
> 
> just like having red hair is a normal variation of human hair color, albeit less common.
> 
> ...


Hair color doesn't determine whether or not genes are passed on from one generation to another...please be real...offer scientifically relevant responses, or no response at all...go to college and then you'll be able to respond logically...


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> My point is that NATURAL SELECTION confirms that homosexuality is abnormal.


natural selection only confirms that those who are most adapted to their environment are most likely to pass on their genes.

apparently gays, although less common, are rather adept at passing on their genes as evidenced by their continued existence.

my condolences that you have no clue about how science and evolution works.


----------



## The Yorkshireman (May 10, 2012)

Define "Normal".


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> natural selection only confirms that those who are most adapted to their environment are most likely to pass on their genes.
> 
> apparently gays, although less common, are rather adept at passing on their genes as evidenced by their continued existence.
> 
> my condolences that you have no clue about how science and evolution works.


By your logic, my dear uncle, cancer should have worked its way out of our genes long ago...but it hasn't...


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Hair color doesn't determine whether or not genes are passed on from one generation to another..


and neither does homosexuality, since homosexuals are not precluded from having heterosexual sex.

and i find it to be the height of irony that you criticize my understanding of science while ascribing intention to mother nature.

seems like you failed 9th grade biology and are mad about your latent homosexual urges. that's my guess.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

The Yorkshireman said:


> Define "Normal".


Average. Take a math class in probability and statistics, and you'll understand.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> By your logic, my dear uncle, cancer should have worked its way out of our genes long ago...but it hasn't...


by your logic, mother nature would have gotten rid of anything undesirable a long time ago, since mother nature has intention.

you are not one to criticize anything. now go fap to gay porn, we all know you want to. all you think about is gay sex.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> and neither does homosexuality, since homosexuals are not precluded from having heterosexual sex.
> 
> and i find it to be the height of irony that you criticize my understanding of science while ascribing intention to mother nature.
> 
> seems like you failed 9th grade biology and are mad about your latent homosexual urges. that's my guess.


Yeah, but they procreate much less than heterosexuals, or not at all...which is what Mother Nature wants...


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Average. Take a math class in probability and statistics, and you'll understand.


have you graduated grade 6 yet? just curious.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Yeah, but they procreate much less than heterosexuals, or not at all...which is what Mother Nature wants...


but somehow their genes live on, go figure. 

so tell me, how does mother nature have intention? explain that to me, baby einstein.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> by your logic, mother nature would have gotten rid of anything undesirable a long time ago, since mother nature has intention.
> 
> you are not one to criticize anything. now go fap to gay porn, we all know you want to. all you think about is gay sex.


Insults are just proof that you are losing an argumernt...and your are...and have...


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Take your blinders off as see nature OBJECTIVELY...instead of through liberal glasses...





WileyCoyote said:


> ...go to college and then you'll be able to respond logically...





WileyCoyote said:


> Take a math class in probability and statistics, and you'll understand.





WileyCoyote said:


> Insults are just proof that you are losing an argumernt...and your are...and have...


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

is wiley the douche ever going to explain to me how mother nature has intentions and desires?

LOL!


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> This is SO FUN...proving you left-wing liberals to be the biased Christian-like beings that you are...bring it on!!!!


your argument is premised on a logical fallacy.

good job, baby einstein.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Natural Selection operates as though it has intentions and desires...whether you acknowlege it or not...


but it doesn't have intentions and desires. so your argument is flawed before it gets its shoes on.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> your argument is premised on a logical fallacy.
> 
> good job, baby einstein.


Have you studied evolutionary theory?...Biochemistry?...Mathermatical probability and statistics?...I have studied ALL...and ALL reinforce my statements here...


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> but it doesn't have intentions and desires. so your argument is flawed before it gets its shoes on.


Pleae, oh please, my dear uncle, offer some SCIENTIFIC reasoning for your opinions, instead of just "you're stupid, young einstein".


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Have you studied evolutionary theory?...Biochemistry?...Mathermatical probability and statistics?...I have studied ALL...and ALL reinforce my statements here...


your argument is based on the logical fallacy of anthropomorphisation, ascribing human qualities to a non-human object.

probably should have taken a philosophy 101 course, baby einstein.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Pleae, oh please, my dear uncle, offer some SCIENTIFIC reasoning for your opinions, instead of just "you're stupid, young einstein".


once you can show me how a mother nature can have intentions and desires, i will take your argument seriously.

until then, all you have is fail sauce.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> your argument is based on the logical fallacy of anthropomorphisation, ascribing human qualities to a non-human object.
> 
> probably should have taken a philosophy 101 course, baby einstein.


Philosophy cannot operate outside the realm of logical science, Old Einstein...


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Pleae, oh please, my dear uncle, offer some SCIENTIFIC reasoning for your opinions, instead of just "you're stupid, young einstein".


and how are you saying we don't understand science when you ascribe intention and will to mother nature? that is the epitome of ignoring science.

baby einstein.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Philosophy cannot operate outside the realm of logical science, Old Einstein...


every time you mention science, i laugh and a kitten dies.

you are not one to be talking about science when you think that mother nature has intentions and desires.

what does mother nature want for christmas, baby einstein? 

LOL!


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> once you can show me how a mother nature can have intentions and desires, i will take your argument seriously.
> 
> until then, all you have is fail sauce.


If you cannot see that scientific nature has brought a bunch of basic nuclear particles to the complex life we have today, then I don't think there's any hope for you to be objective about any of your understandings...


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> If you cannot see that scientific nature has brought a bunch of basic nuclear particles to the complex life we have today, then I don't think there's any hope for you to be objective about any of your understandings...


random genetic mutations brought us from simple organisms to more complex organisms, actually.

have you not graduated 4th grade yet?


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> every time you mention science, i laugh and a kitten dies.
> 
> you are not one to be talking about science when you think that mother nature has intentions and desires.
> 
> ...


I hate kittens anyway...Take a physics course, a genetics course, and a course in probability and statistics...and then you'll want to be my friend


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> If you cannot see that scientific nature has brought a bunch of basic nuclear particles to the complex life we have today, then I don't think there's any hope for you to be objective about any of your understandings...


and who are you to be talking about objectivity when you assign your subjective interpretation to mother nature?

you fail so hard it's not even funny.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Insults are just proof that you are losing an argumernt...and your are...and have...





WileyCoyote said:


> ...Take a physics course, a genetics course, and a course in probability and statistics...


i majored in probability and statistics, actually.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> random genetic mutations brought us from simple organisms to more complex organisms, actually.
> 
> have you not graduated 4th grade yet?


I graduated 4the grade with Jethro Bodine...and now I have a 6th grade education...


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> i majored in probability and statistics, actually.


Cool...I respect that...I got a general Math degree myself...but took as many Prob & Stat electives as I could...


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> and who are you to be talking about objectivity when you assign your subjective interpretation to mother nature?
> 
> you fail so hard it's not even funny.


Mother Nature is not a spiritual being, I know...Mother Nature, as I make reference to, is a scientific, logical process that was decided in "nature" long before you or I came into existence...Until now I have refrained from throwing insults, and I will continue my abstinence


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Mother Nature is not a spiritual being, I know...Mother Nature, as I make reference to, is a scientific, logical process that was decided in "nature" long before you or I came into existence...Until now I have refrained from throwing insults, and I will continue my abstinence


lol, you've been insulting people because they don't ascribe to your logical fallacies this whole time.

i'm done with you, your argument is based in anthropomorphising mother nature and is thus invalid.

maybe someone else will come along for you to play with, baby einstein.


----------



## Kush70 (May 10, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> homosexuality is a completely normal variation of human sexuality, albeit less common.
> 
> just like having red hair is a normal variation of human hair color, albeit less common.
> 
> ...


very well said !


----------



## Total Head (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> My point is that NATURAL SELECTION confirms that homosexuality is abnormal. You extreme left-wing people here don't see things as objectively as you profess...you're just as biased as conservative right-wing Christians...but you won't admit it...
> 
> Take your blinders off as see nature OBJECTIVELY...instead of through liberal glasses...


so are you for natural selection, or forcing homosexuals to procreate, thus passing on their "unnaturalness"? you can't have it both ways.

and calling me a left wing liberal is about as laughable as the rest of your position.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

Total Head said:


> so are you for natural selection, or forcing homosexuals to procreate, thus passing on their "unnaturalness"? you can't have it both ways.
> 
> and calling me a left wing liberal is about as laughable as the rest of your position.


the funniest part is that he tells US to see things objectively when his whole argument is based on a subjective logical fallacy.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> lol, you've been insulting people because they don't ascribe to your logical fallacies this whole time.
> 
> i'm done with you, your argument is based in anthropomorphising mother nature and is thus invalid.
> 
> maybe someone else will come along for you to play with, baby einstein.


So, when you're beaten and battered, you just leave? Oh, it was so much fun beating the hell out of you based upon logic...but seriously, I think you and I could be friends one day...


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Look, dear uncle, if you are a homo wanting to come out of the closet, please feel free to do so in my thread...I have NOTHING against homos...nothing at all...I rejoice, as does Mother Nature, that you mistakes of nature don't procreate...


homosexuals do procreate.

http://www.gayspermbank.com/

funny that you claim to have nothing against homosexuals yet call them 'abnormal mistakes of nature'.

you fail so hard.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> So, when you're beaten and battered, you just leave? Oh, it was so much fun beating the hell out of you based upon logic...but seriously, I think you and I could be friends one day...


you're the one who is ascribing human qualities to mother nature, basing your argument on a logical fallacy which i was so kind to point out, yet i'm getting beaten?

lol.

i decided to stay for a while longer to make sport of you, child.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 10, 2012)

WC, this is the only time I'm going to ask you to be a little bit more respectful, man. I closed the last thread because it dissolved into playground banter, just like this one is turning out to be. You can state your opinion, but do it in a more mature way. Stop letting yourself get trolled by UB. UB, stop trolling this guy. 

Part of the reason stupid pointless bullshit like a persons sexuality is an issue in the first place is because even as individuals we can't discuss it without taking it and turning it into something personal.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> the funniest part is that he tells US to see things objectively when his whole argument is based on a subjective logical fallacy.


Offer scientific evidence based upon logical evolutionary theory, or admit defeat...I have done the former...you have basically done the latter...but there's still time for you to see things my way (the right way) and for us to be friends...


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> UB, stop trolling this guy.


how am i trolling the guy? i'm simply pointing out that his argument is based off of a logical fallacy.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Offer scientific evidence based upon logical evolutionary theory, or admit defeat...I have done the former...you have basically done the latter...but there's still time for you to see things my way (the right way) and for us to be friends...


logical fallacies are never the right way.

if you want some more information about how evolution works, here is a helpful link.

http://www.dafk.net/what/


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> WC, this is the only time I'm going to ask you to be a little bit more respectful, man. I closed the last thread because it dissolved into playground banter, just like this one is turning out to be. You can state your opinion, but do it in a more mature way. Stop letting yourself get trolled by UB. UB, stop trolling this guy.
> 
> Part of the reason stupid pointless bullshit like a persons sexuality is an issue in the first place is because even as individuals we can't discuss it without taking it and turning it into something personal.


I see your point. But I still believe that my post is based upon provable scientific theory. But I do admit that my take is debateable.

Please understand that I DO NOT HATE GAYS!!! I am just trying to spark debate...and yes I love to banter back and forth with my dear Uncle Buck...I consider him to be a friend...whether he reciprocates or not...but I will refrain if you wish...I do appreciate the HONEST UP FRONT response this time, without my thread disappearing with no explanation...


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> I still believe that my post is based upon provable scientific theory.


you hold another false belief, unless you have some actuals science proving that mother nature has intentions and desires.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> you hold another false belief, unless you have some actuals science proving that mother nature has intentions and desires.


Oh please dear uncle, you must realize that this world we live in didn't just appear without a process...designed or not, it was a logical process based upon the laws of science...


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 10, 2012)

Well, bed time. Good night dear Uncle Buck...I still say we can be friends sometime soon...


----------



## UncleBuck (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Oh please dear uncle, you must realize that this world we live in didn't just appear without a process...designed or not, it was a logical process based upon the laws of science...


nothing you say will give mother nature intentions and desires. good night, baby einstein.


----------



## mindphuk (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> My point is that NATURAL SELECTION confirms that homosexuality is abnormal. You extreme left-wing people here don't see things as objectively as you profess...you're just as biased as conservative right-wing Christians...but you won't admit it...
> 
> Take your blinders off as see nature OBJECTIVELY...instead of through liberal glasses...


Natural selection is the mechanism by which we see certain alleles increase or decrease in frequency within a given population. Considering that neither you or anyone else has demonstrated that homosexuality is controlled by genes directly or even only one way as there could be multiple paths to become gay, you have not confirmed anything. 

One of the leading hypotheses is that hormonal interference during certain crucial fetal developmental periods may play a role in making a person gay. This could be completely under the control of the mother carrying the fetus and have absolutely nothing to do with the genotype of the child. 
Another possibility is that genes that contribute to being gay are linked with other genes like impeccable fashion sense... okay bad joke. But seriously, if there are gay genes closely linked to other genes that give us certain desirable traits, then those genes will be passed down more often as a by-product, an accident of linkage as a recessive trait.


----------



## mindphuk (May 10, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> I see your point. But I still believe that my post is based upon provable scientific theory. But I do admit that my take is debateable.


HIGHLY debatable. Considering you have merely proposed a hypothesis, one that is not based upon modern evolutionary theory and genetics but upon your obviously weak understanding of biological evolution. Why do birds-of-paradise evolve long tail feathers when it would seem the evolutionary cost to be so very high? Just because something doesn't seem to fit automatically with a simple and direct interpretation of natural selection does not mean that there isn't a valid explanation using evolutionary theory to explain it.


----------



## Daxus (May 11, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> but it doesn't have intentions and desires. so your argument is flawed before it gets its shoes on.


Natural Selection doesn't drive everything though. What about natural genetic mutations? And since gays continue to thrive and survive perhaps natural selection is working just fine for them. It often results in a population that fits a certain niche. Couldn't this niche be man made?


----------



## bundee1 (May 11, 2012)

You're arguing that something that exists naturally is wrong. You're placing morals on a natural state of being. How can a natural occurence be wrong? Your argument is over before it even begins. The fact that homosexuality still exists (even though you so badly want it to be gone you're mad at science for not getting rid of it) negates any points you have.


----------



## Doer (May 11, 2012)

Pleasure and pairing are natural. History has tried many combos. You, Mr. Coyote have been preached at too much. We all have.

It's true, anti-social people are everywhere. For this I define it as "In your face." You don't have to be gay. Goths, Bikers, Evangelicals, Deadheads, Gang bangers, Counter-culture Hippies, Krishnas, etc. All can be anti-social. They want to rub it on us for the annoyance.

I decided long ago, what I hate is culture, not the "race", nor the inclination, not the deeds. The stupid, in your face, culture. There is no genetic basis for culture or Race. There is just people behaving. So, give up. There are no justifications for your attitude or the behavior.. If you detest gay culture, just say so. I do. No law against it. It's not the same at all as hating the people.


----------



## DustBomb (May 11, 2012)

so ur saying homosexuality doesnt occur in nature and is totally man made???


----------



## Doer (May 11, 2012)

DustBomb said:


> so ur saying homosexuality doesnt occur in nature and is totally man made???


No. I said pleasure and pairing are natural.


----------



## BA142 (May 11, 2012)

Doer said:


> If you detest gay culture, just say so. I do. No law against it. It's not the same at all as hating the people.


Why do you even care what two adults do in the privacy of their own home. I'll never get the "anti-gay" culture that is so prevalent here. Unless they're fucking each other in the ass on your couch, then why the fuck do you even care?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (May 11, 2012)

^ Very good point BA +Rep


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (May 11, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Wow, my thread last night asking about the normality of homosexuality was deleted. Even though it generated 15 pages of responses within about 2 hours!
> 
> So, here goes again.
> 
> ...




Nature dose not sense anything abnormal or normal and carries with it no prerogative for seperatisms.Nature just is,we have merely identified the intrinsic state along with the phenomena of our world as nature.As much as Nature is personified as Mother Nature it dose not give her sentience to have any sense of judgement to weed out homosexuals.Thats a preconceived notion that fails.Why are homosexuals even born then?If nature dosent "want" homosexuals to live on then they would have died out by now.The fact is that there isnt anything determining that homosexuals cannot produce offspring,they are just as fertile as the "normal" people as u so put it.
So just exactly how is that the will/instinct to procreate and preserve our species indicate that homosexuality is abnormal?Lets here a well defined statement.


----------



## Doer (May 11, 2012)

BA142 said:


> Why do you even care what two adults do in the privacy of their own home. I'll never get the "anti-gay" culture that is so prevalent here. Unless they're fucking each other in the ass on your couch, then why the fuck do you even care?


Well, I would not mind that. So, you missed point about about the culture. The trappings, the lisp, the gay-doggery. Compare that to the other sheep like cultures I hate. Sex doesn't offend me. And blatant Twinks hardly confine that to the privacy of their homes.

It's is a free society where I feel free to care about what I decide.


----------



## DustBomb (May 11, 2012)

i understand all points but u'd be surprised who around u that is really gay.... u'd never know and u'd probably respect the hell out of that person... but when u find out that they're gay u'd shun them, not respect them anymore?


----------



## bundee1 (May 11, 2012)

Neil Patrick Harris is funny as hell in straight roles. Who knew Doogie Howser was gay?


----------



## st0wandgrow (May 11, 2012)

BA142 said:


> Why do you even care what two adults do in the privacy of their own home. I'll never get the "anti-gay" culture that is so prevalent here. Unless they're fucking each other in the ass on your couch, then why the fuck do you even care?


Well put, BA!! I'm in your camp. So long as there are two consenting adults involved the relationship, I could not care less what genitalia they are packing around.

Ohh, and Wiley, you have been completely owned on this thread!


----------



## Heisenberg (May 11, 2012)

Homosexuality does not seem to aide in reproduction, the purpose of sexuality, and so it does seem curious that evolution has not filtered it out. <-- Without being an evolutionary scientist no one can make any assertions beyond this statement. 

The idea that, following this, homosexuals are as abnormal as pedophiles is a non-sequitor. The logic you seem fond of bragging about is absent. Seems like a thinly veiled attempt to get UB riled up, rather than any sort of informed opinion. And UB is never so ugly as when he is riled up.

Lots of sexual acts humans like to perform do not have the goal of procreation. Anal sex, oral sex, and even masturbation would fall into the same category. Mother nature did not eliminate homosexuals ability to reproduce, which seems to be your unstated premise. Also, the opinion that homosexuality is determined by genetic makeup seems to be thoroughly unsupported.

You and UB need to keep your caterwaul in TnT where it is tolerated. It is disrespectful of the users of this sub-forum and will not be tolerated here.


----------



## jessy koons (May 11, 2012)

The Yorkshireman said:


> Define "Normal".


Normal means something is not so weird that people feel nervous. 

My friend Bill likes to take off his clothes in the bar when he has too much to drink. He doesn't look good naked and people get pretty mad. I think that most citizens would think that this activity is not normal.

My friend Kyle likes to buy drinks for strangers when he is drunk. Everybody likes this sort of behavior and don't think it is strange at all. No one tries to stop him, ever. He is acting in a normal way for an inebriated person, kind of.

I've lost my train of thought so you'll have fill in the rest. Hava nice day.


----------



## jessy koons (May 11, 2012)

I kind of got carried away with my 'normal' rant but I will put forward that homosexuality is perfectly natural and quite appropriate for many people. 

Love is hard enough to find in this world without some small minded busybodies proclaiming that love outside of official channels is wrong.


----------



## Wednesday (May 11, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> your argument is premised on a logical fallacy.
> 
> good job, baby einstein.


Buck, Baby Einstein has a very cool and educational product line  We mustn't insult them. Forgot OP's user name but confused as to how he/she knows what Mother Nature wants? Does she speak to you when you're high?


----------



## Doer (May 11, 2012)

DustBomb said:


> i understand all points but u'd be surprised who around u that is really gay.... u'd never know and u'd probably respect the hell out of that person... but when u find out that they're gay u'd shun them, not respect them anymore?


Of course not. Are you intentional missing my point? And are you assuming my orientation, are you? I respect people that don't join pin-headed gangs and affiliations of any ilk and muster.


----------



## Doer (May 11, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Homosexuality does not seem to aide in reproduction, the purpose of sexuality, and so it does seem curious that evolution has not filtered it out. <-- Without being an evolutionary scientist no one can make any assertions beyond this statement.
> 
> The idea that, following this, homosexuals are as abnormal as pedophiles is a non-sequitor. The logic you seem fond of bragging about is absent. Seems like a thinly veiled attempt to get UB riled up, rather than any sort of informed opinion. And UB is never so ugly as when he is riled up.
> 
> Lots of sexual acts humans like to perform do not have the goal of procreation. Anal sex, oral sex, and even masturbation would fall into the same category. Mother nature did not eliminate homosexuals ability to reproduce, which seems to be your unstated premise. Also, the opinion that homosexuality is determined by genetic makeup seems to be thoroughly unsupported.


Right. We can say the same thing about compassion beyond family. What good does it do for the family tree to help other DNA lines. Why do we have this universal altruism? There is no Darwinism angle, is there? Why has not evolution stamped that out? It's the latest research that confirms what we know already. The good of the many. Safety in numbers. Defensive depth in leadership. So obvious that evolution is humans is more than strict survival.

Compassion is good for society. We laud it and praise it. Women and men select mates with compassion as a criteria. 

Human love and the desire for partnering for pleasure is our genetic destiny, like compassion. Sex is just sex. It can also be used for procreation. Inconceivable, surely for our earliest ancestors, the idea that this sex act could result possibly, in the death of a women and the birth of child many moons later???

I'm quite sure, that revelation came well after the discovery of the pleasure, which was the first night.  BTW, pedophilia to me is the same concept. Entire societies have thrived on it. It's just condemned in modern times and given an ugly name.

In Sparta and among the Althenians, for example, it was considered the greatest love. We now have an ugly culture in the west and strange attempts are made to shield and judge, which can make for an ugly culture.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 11, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You and UB need to keep your caterwaul in TnT where it is tolerated. It is disrespectful of the users of this sub-forum and will not be tolerated here.


You're right, I apologize for my conduct in the thread, and in previous ones thus far regarding the issues of homosexuality or Islam or, well... spirituality in general.. To be perfectly honest, I really don't understand much about either of them and, they frighten me, which is why I tend to make ignorant claims that can't be backed up... 

I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize to UB, Heis as well as Pad, for disrespecting them and their service to education and science. I am ashamed of myself.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 11, 2012)

Wednesday said:


> Buck, Baby Einstein has a very cool and educational product line  We mustn't insult them. Forgot OP's user name but confused as to how he/she knows what Mother Nature wants? Does she speak to you when you're high?


Mother Nature is just a "nickname", if you will, for the natural things that take place in the world based upon observable evidence...i.e. science...

To say that Mother Nature "wants" a certain thing to happen is just another way of saying that "by the observable and intuitive properties of science, this thing is obvious".

Anybody who really thinks that I've ever implied that Mother Nature is a living being who "wants" or "desires", is so baked that they shouldn't be reading on this web site...


----------



## Rascality Afoot (May 11, 2012)

WileyCoyote, you're a stupid c*nt, but I'll defend with my life your right to be a stupid c*nt on the internet.

Maybe mother nature figured there was too many HUMANS, and so started reducing their desire to procreate, but still gave them something to fuck. Pedophilia is wrong because a pedophile must cause terrible psychological harm to a child in order to fulfill their desires. Gay dudes just have to find other dudes who like dudes too, and maybe some dudes that they know will show up too. 

Doer, you're a c*nt as well. Societies haven't thrived on pedophilia. Pedophilia is an attraction to children before sexual maturity. Having sex with a willing 14 year old is wierd and immoral, but nonetheless has two willing, sexually mature participants. Having sex with a nine year old who you bought a baseball glove and told that if they ever tell anyone santa-clause will die, that's really horrible and I've never heard of a society that has tollerated it that wasn't led by a bunch of lecherous old gnarly pieces of sh*t. I'm assuming that you did not mean sex with kids is is simply "taboo"


----------



## Doer (May 11, 2012)

Not very well read huh? As I said, today we have an ugly society that defines pedophila as a certain age It's a society that defines with smug horror, the way you do. It's a society that is based on warpped morality of the religious majority. It's Arbitrary this pedophilia definition and defined at the state level. And sexual maturity is moving down in the poorer communities due perhaps to deficiencies in diet. It's a society that is moving backwards in a lot of ways. For example, it's a society that produces people that can only communicate by name calling. Ugly.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 11, 2012)

Rascality Afoot said:


> WileyCoyote, you're a stupid c*nt, but I'll defend with my life your right to be a stupid c*nt on the internet.
> 
> Maybe mother nature figured there was too many HUMANS, and so started reducing their desire to procreate, but still gave them something to fuck. Pedophilia is wrong because a pedophile must cause terrible psychological harm to a child in order to fulfill their desires. Gay dudes just have to find other dudes who like dudes too, and maybe some dudes that they know will show up too.
> 
> Doer, you're a c*nt as well. Societies haven't thrived on pedophilia. Pedophilia is an attraction to children before sexual maturity. Having sex with a willing 14 year old is wierd and immoral, but nonetheless has two willing, sexually mature participants. Having sex with a nine year old who you bought a baseball glove and told that if they ever tell anyone santa-clause will die, that's really horrible and I've never heard of a society that has tollerated it that wasn't led by a bunch of lecherous old gnarly pieces of sh*t. I'm assuming that you did not mean sex with kids is is simply "taboo"


You're just blind to Natural Selection...but I do LIKE being compared to a cunt......hell yeah!!!...A very tight and slick one...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 11, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Mother Nature is just a "nickname", if you will, for the natural things that take place in the world based upon observable evidence...i.e. science...
> 
> To say that Mother Nature "wants" a certain thing to happen is just another way of saying that "by the observable and intuitive properties of science, this thing is obvious".
> 
> Anybody who really thinks that I've ever implied that Mother Nature is a living being who "wants" or "desires", is so baked that they shouldn't be reading on this web site...



To break down your argument;

1. "mother nature" (science) "doesn't like" homosexuals - the evidence you use to support this is simply because they can't reproduce [with each other]

2. that means they're unnatural 

3. unnatural equates to bad

4. therefore, homosexuality is bad


premise 1 - sterile heterosexual people can't reproduce, yet genetic conditions exist in the gene pool that render some people sterile from birth, homosexuals can in fact reproduce, and heterosexual people produce homosexual children

premise 2 - polyester, glasses, sunscreen, all "unnatural" in the same sense of the word you're using. 

premise 3 - "Natural" and "unnatural" describe words in nature, nature encompasses everything you know. So again, you're using the incorrect word, you probably mean "abnormal", and if that's the case, so what? You do plenty of "abnormal" things as well I'm sure. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, even if one did choose it.

You have yet to show any evidence to support any of the premises you've come up with. 

One who supports your theory would also deny equal rights to sterile couples or individuals because they can't reproduce, deny equal rights and likely discriminate against those that chose to have sex without the purpose of conceiving a child or those that decided to wear a condom. 

Why does "unnatural" or "abnormal" automatically equate to "bad"?


----------



## Wednesday (May 11, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Wow, my thread last night asking about the normality of homosexuality was deleted. Even though it generated 15 pages of responses within about 2 hours!
> 
> So, here goes again.
> 
> ...





WileyCoyote said:


> Mother Nature is just a "nickname", if you will, for the natural things that take place in the world based upon observable evidence...i.e. science...
> 
> To say that Mother Nature "wants" a certain thing to happen is just another way of saying that "by the observable and intuitive properties of science, this thing is obvious".
> 
> Anybody who really thinks that I've ever implied that Mother Nature is a living being who "wants" or "desires", is so baked that they shouldn't be reading on this web site...


I wasn't baked. I was reading what you said.


----------



## mindphuk (May 11, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> You're just blind to Natural Selection...but I do LIKE being compared to a cunt......hell yeah!!!...A very tight and slick one...


Please address posts 52 and 53


----------



## UncleBuck (May 12, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> You're right, I apologize for my conduct in the thread, and in previous ones thus far regarding the issues of homosexuality or Islam or, well... spirituality in general.. To be perfectly honest, I really don't understand much about either of them and, they frighten me, which is why I tend to make ignorant claims that can't be backed up...
> 
> I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize to UB, Heis as well as Pad, for disrespecting them and their service to education and science. I am ashamed of myself.


you don't need to apologize to me, i had fun. but i will point out that your apology, warranted or not, makes you a bigger man and gains you lots of respect in everyone's eyes.

not everyone is mature enough to apologize for stuff, even though like i said, i don't feel you owe anyone an apology. we're just messing around on the interwebz.


----------



## scroglodyte (May 12, 2012)

its abnormal for me. it may be normal for the next guy. i have bigger fish to fry, than who fucks who.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 12, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> you don't need to apologize to me, i had fun. but i will point out that your apology, warranted or not, makes you a bigger man and gains you lots of respect in everyone's eyes.
> 
> not everyone is mature enough to apologize for stuff, even though like i said, i don't feel you owe anyone an apology. we're just messing around on the interwebz.



I can't help but laugh at the fact that the only time someone has told Wiley he is the bigger man is when another man put words into his mouth.

And guys, I understand you are having fun with your insults, but not everyone does. TnT is used to that. In here we may have actual confused people who are struggling with these issues and searching for answers. These people may not see this forum as just another place to play on the 'interwebz'. This is indeed the place designated for serious discussion of sexuality. If either of you have ever felt lost, misunderstood and without guidance you should understand why we like to keep things more civil in here.


----------



## scroglodyte (May 12, 2012)

*You're right, I apologize for my conduct in the thread, and in previous ones thus far regarding the issues of homosexuality or Islam or, well... spirituality in general.. To be perfectly honest, I really don't understand much about either of them and, they frighten me, which is why I tend to make ignorant claims that can't be backed up... 


*
at least homos don't wanna take over the world in a blood-bath of forced conversion. whoops.......


----------



## tyler.durden (May 12, 2012)

+rep, Wiley. That took balls...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 12, 2012)

luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulz


----------



## bundee1 (May 12, 2012)

lulz is right. lulz he


----------



## Darwin Riddle (May 12, 2012)

this thread should be deleted too...you just like to get a rise out of people...trollette...you do like to talk about pedophiles alot tho.......


----------



## DreamTime (May 12, 2012)

Trying to have a serious discussion in these threads is like finding a great group of people in the quad to debate with only to end up getting pelted with water balloons.


----------



## The Potologist (May 12, 2012)

If homosexuality is abnormal then it must be a choice?? To which I say, trying being gay yourself...just try, after all its just a choice right???  Not a choice at all, nor an abnormality. 


Where there is mass ignorance, there is mass confusion. Where there is mass confusion, there are idiosyncrasies and finally where there are idiosyncrasies there is a negative counter-intuitive progression of communication. RIU, being a grande example. Apart from the growing section ( and no their not exempt, they have their fair share of it) a great majority of threads started on RIU change subjects 10-15 times, and never really hit any positive dialect, its mostly rubbish filled opinions that only take away from any positive communication. 

No body ever said stoners are known for staying focused :/ Hey look a squirrel


----------



## Doer (May 12, 2012)

Bark! Bark! BARK!


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 12, 2012)

The proponents of this argument against homosexuality haven't answered why if something is 'abnormal' it automatically becomes 'bad'.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (May 12, 2012)

One word, fear.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 12, 2012)

You just haven't considered their arguments...


----------



## Darwin Riddle (May 12, 2012)

Isn't asking the same question, over and over again, abnormal? I'm starting to wonder if you, yourself, are homosexual and that is why you need so much feedback, from us, on this topic!!!


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 12, 2012)

Darwin Riddle said:


> Isn't asking the same question, over and over again, abnormal? I'm starting to wonder if you, yourself, are homosexual and that is why you need so much feedback, from us, on this topic!!!


No, I'm not a homo. My views on homos are:

1. They have the same rights (or should) as heteros.
2. They should be treated with respect.
3. They should be allowed to marry.
4. Their natural desires (yes, I realize they are born gay, and did not choose to be gay) are COUNTER to the design (or current evolutionary state, whichever term you prefer) of nature.
5. While lesbians are really and truly OK with me, rump-ranging men make me sick (much like pedophiles). But that's just me. I realize that many reasonable people feel otherwise.


----------



## kelly4 (May 12, 2012)

Who don't love some lipstick lesbians?


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 12, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> One word, fear.


I'm not afraid to see the truth of nature. Why are you? I didn't make these rules; I'm just not afraid to see them.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 12, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> The proponents of this argument against homosexuality haven't answered why if something is 'abnormal' it automatically becomes 'bad'.


I never said that homosexuality is BAD. I just said that it is contrary to the current state of nature. Just like pedophelia. Homos and peds are born with their sexual desires. They didn't choose them, I know. 

I DO NOT condone pedophilia, but homos are OK with me. They are both simply a mistake of nature. Like a child born with autism.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 12, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> No, I'm not a homo. My views on homos are:
> 
> 1. They have the same rights (or should) as heteros.
> 2. They should be treated with respect.
> ...


These are all reasonable statements. Where you got into trouble with most people is when you said these lines



> Or more clearly, it indicates that Mother Nature senses something wrong with homosexuals to the extent that She doesn't want them to procreate.


Mother nature endowed many homosexuals with healthy reproductive systems. Furthermore, following your premise, we would have to assume mother nature finds something wrong with old people or anyone who is naturally sterile. Your logic is so loose that we could use it to also assume that, since mother nature gives human cancer, she must not want humans around. Underneath all of this is the fact that empirical evidence casts serious doubt on homosexuality being simply a matter of genetics, therefore natural selection must not be the only mechanic involved and may in fact be incidental.



> I submit that homosexuals are as much abnormal as pedophiles.


If I am hearing you right, you are now saying something a little different than what this line would suggest. You are saying that you personally find male homosexuality as disgusting and repellent as the idea of pedophilia. That is kinda like me saying that I find the idea of eating cow tongue to be as disgusting as eating rotted roadkill. I _wouldn't_ be saying those who eat cow tongue are abnormal, or that they would share any traits with someone who would eat roadkill.


In the end, the one criticism you have of gay male sex is the same criticism that could be said about any of the sex any of us have. Any sex act that is performed by any couple is going to be disgusting to someone somewhere. If you masturbate, then you are not only thwarting nature yourself, you are deeply disgusting many people around the globe. It would seem that personal distaste is a poor way to distinguish what sex acts are appropriate and which are not. If you think about it, you will see that pedophilia is distinguished as wrong by far more criteria than simply being repulsive.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 12, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You just haven't considered their arguments...
> 
> 
> View attachment 2164484


Oh yes Werner, I have considered their arguments. They are baseless. Mine are factual and in line with what can be observed in nature.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 12, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Please address posts 52 and 53


OK, give me a chance to review them, and I will respond.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 12, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Natural selection is the mechanism by which we see certain alleles increase or decrease in frequency within a given population. Considering that neither you or anyone else has demonstrated that homosexuality is controlled by genes directly or even only one way as there could be multiple paths to become gay, you have not confirmed anything.
> 
> One of the leading hypotheses is that hormonal interference during certain crucial fetal developmental periods may play a role in making a person gay. This could be completely under the control of the mother carrying the fetus and have absolutely nothing to do with the genotype of the child.
> Another possibility is that genes that contribute to being gay are linked with other genes like impeccable fashion sense... okay bad joke. But seriously, if there are gay genes closely linked to other genes that give us certain desirable traits, then those genes will be passed down more often as a by-product, an accident of linkage as a recessive trait.


I don't know if there are "gay genes" or not. Probably not is my guess. But SOMETHING makes certain people be born with a desire to have sex with members of their own sex...which serves to prevent (or reduce, in the case if bisexuals) their their procreation...which is counter to the second-strongest desire of most animals (yes, we are animals) - to pass ones genes on.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 12, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> These are all reasonable statements. Where you got into trouble with most people is when you said these lines
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, OK, I probably didn't come across as I intended...I am not saying that homos are bad...While I am saying that pedophiles are bad...however the desires of both seem to be counter to the second-strongest desire of all (or most) animals...to procreate. and yes I realize that many homos and peds procreate.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 12, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Yeah, OK, I probably didn't come across as I intended...I am not saying that homos are bad...While I am saying that pedophiles are bad...however the desires of both seem to be counter to the second-strongest desire of all (or most) animals...to procreate. and yes I realize that many homos and peds procreate.


And I'll go as far to say that bisexuality is probably not counter to nature. Bisexuals do have the desire to pass their genes on.

Again, I have no hatred toward gays. I'm just trying to see humankind in the context of nature. Maybe I'm wrong. But I don't think so.


----------



## Darwin Riddle (May 12, 2012)

^^^ I'm telling ya!! They say the ones who worry about it the most...are the ones suppressing certain urges....


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 12, 2012)

Oh well, time to go out to eat. I'll see you all in the funny papers in the morning.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 12, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> My dear Uncle Buck! So good to hear from you again.
> 
> No, I don't relish the idea of another man's member, especially if as big as mine, straightening out my colon. My proctologist does a very nice job of that every 5 years with his hose pipe.


as big as yours?

it doesn't get any more homo than telling other guys about your penis unprompted and constantly alluding to gay sex.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 12, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Oh well, time to go out to eat. I'll see you all in the funny papers in the morning.


go figure.

when the subject comes around to wiley's clear latent homosexual urges, he gets uncomfortable and all of a sudden has to leave.

i bet he'll be back to talk about homosexuality and tell us about his penis and describe things he'd like to try tomorrow.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 12, 2012)

Are you guys really OK with literally turning this thread into a bigger dick contest?


----------



## Darwin Riddle (May 12, 2012)

don't forget pedophiles......


----------



## mindphuk (May 12, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> I don't know if there are "gay genes" or not. Probably not is my guess. But SOMETHING makes certain people be born with a desire to have sex with members of their own sex...which serves to prevent (or reduce, in the case if bisexuals) their their procreation...which is counter to the second-strongest desire of most animals (yes, we are animals) - to pass ones genes on.


Again, this is incorrect and you are not acknowledging the fact that animals do not feel a need to procreate, they feel a desire toward sex. Sex usually leads to procreation in nature which is why sexual reproduction is successful. You cannot however equate sexual desire with the desire to procreate. If you look at young males, the most virile of our species, they tend to desire to have sex with as many woman as possible while not getting attached to any. Woman, OTOH, have a desire for long-term relationships. From an evolutionary standpoint this makes since since that is what is necessary for raising a child but it is not procreation or raising children that give woman their emotional desire for close relationships. You seem to be confusing the goal of genes, which is to survive long enough to make as many copies of itself to continue on and the results that various genes have on the vehicle in which they find themselves, plant or animal. Do you really think that when plants and animals mate they understand that it is this action that will produce offspring? Like you say, humans are merely animals. Just because we can intellectually and consciously connect the sexual act with procreation does not mean that procreation is what we desire.


----------



## TogTokes (May 12, 2012)

crazy topic


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 12, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Again, this is incorrect and you are not acknowledging the fact that animals do not feel a need to procreate, they feel a desire toward sex. Sex usually leads to procreation in nature which is why sexual reproduction is successful. You cannot however equate sexual desire with the desire to procreate. If you look at young males, the most virile of our species, they tend to desire to have sex with as many woman as possible while not getting attached to any. Woman, OTOH, have a desire for long-term relationships. From an evolutionary standpoint this makes since since that is what is necessary for raising a child but it is not procreation or raising children that give woman their emotional desire for close relationships. You seem to be confusing the goal of genes, which is to survive long enough to make as many copies of itself to continue on and the results that various genes have on the vehicle in which they find themselves, plant or animal. Do you really think that when plants and animals mate they understand that it is this action that will produce offspring? Like you say, humans are merely animals. Just because we can intellectually and consciously connect the sexual act with procreation does not mean that procreation is what we desire.



Where does the desire to procreate come from? Sex, the physical part of it is instinctual, right? Is there an innate sense of wanting to raise a family or have children, according to science?


----------



## mindphuk (May 12, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Where does the desire to procreate come from? Sex, the physical part of it is instinctual, right? Is there an innate sense of wanting to raise a family or have children, according to science?


There seems to be a stronger desire to have children that many woman have if they haven't had a child as they approach an age where it becomes more difficult and dangerous. However, some of this can be attributed to psychological effects although there might be some instinctual component under the control of genes. Once you have children, there is are parenting instincts that kick in but most of those tend toward protection of offspring and not necessarily an actual desire to have more children. I will try to look up if there have been any studies on this.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 12, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> removed


If homosexuality is a disease then why is it not considered so by any field of medicine or health care? Why do we not have drugs that can correct the illness? What is the proposed mechanism of this disorder? I am assuming you have easy answers for these, cosnidering how simple you say it is.

It seems more likely that rather than put any thought into the subject, you are simply regurgitating your knee-jerk prejudice.


----------



## bombasticson (May 12, 2012)

BA142 said:


> Why do you even care what two adults do in the privacy of their own home. I'll never get the "anti-gay" culture that is so prevalent here. Unless they're fucking each other in the ass on your couch, then why the fuck do you even care?


What you fail to realize is the when a kid grows up seeing two men or women kissing he will take it as normal and will most likely be gay also... Do gay people make straight babies?


----------



## Heisenberg (May 12, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> What you fail to realize is the when a kid grows up seeing two men or women kissing he will take it as normal and will most likely be gay also... Do gay people make straight babies?


Wow, so what you are really telling us us that your own sexuality is so fragile that if you see enough men kiss you will want to do it yourself. The only thing that keeps you from doing it is the stigma that it is abnormal. You want to keep this stigma alive because you assume a teenage boy's sexuality is as influential as yours, and calling it abnormal is the only way to get him (or you) to resist.

This would be the implications of your logic.


----------



## bombasticson (May 12, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Wow, so what you are really telling us us that your own sexuality is so fragile that if you see enough men kiss you will want to do it yourself. The only thing that keeps you from doing it is the stigma that it is abnormal. You want to keep this stigma alive because you assume a teenage boy's sexuality is as influential as yours, and calling it abnormal is the only way to get him (or you) to resist.
> 
> This would be the implications of your logic.


Actually what I said was kids man kids, when kids grow up with two dads or two moms what do you think happens... Most times those kids will turn out to be gay or have some serious issues. Thats why more and more gay people come about because kids who have developed their sexual urges yet see gay men on tv or in the street and they get messed up from it man. Do you really think its normal to want to have sex with a guy if you are a guy... That sh1t is taboo man and even though its legal it will always be


----------



## Heisenberg (May 12, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> Actually what I said was kids man kids, when kids grow up with two dads or two moms what do you think happens... Most times those kids will turn out to be gay or have some serious issues. Thats why more and more gay people come about because kids who have developed their sexual urges yet see gay men on tv or in the street and they get messed up from it man. Do you really think its normal to want to have sex with a guy if you are a guy... That sh1t is taboo man and even though its legal it will always be


What I am challenging is your assertion that sexuality can be influenced by observing affection in others. Are you saying that if you grew up seeing men kiss all the time, you would be kissing men today? What you are speaking of isn't desire, it is inhibition. If someone doesn't like penis, then they don't like penis. It's not a matter of simply being too ashamed to try it, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Growing up seeing that same-sex coupling is normal simply removes inhibition, creates a mind open to different ideas, but does not foster any sort of sexuality that isn't present already. 

I am also wondering how you explain the numbers of homosexuals that were raised in strictly heterosexual households. How many gay girls grew up watching women kiss men yet found they didn't like it themselves? Your logic seems pretty shoddy, and as far as I am aware, it's not backed up by any statistical or psychological evidence. As I said, it seem more likely that this is simply evidence of the back-flips your brain has to do in order to justify prejudice.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 12, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> Ok man the whole gay thing makes no sense to me vaginas feel much better then ass and breast feel much better then chest anyone who says otherwise has mental problems man. And alot of homos come about because they were molested or something


So anything that doesn't make sense to you is a mental illness? It's simply a matter of taste. Do you get hung up when someone doesn't like the same ice cream as you? The only thing you have really expressed is that you are not very imaginative and don't place much importance on compassion and understanding.

And statistically, the great majority of boys who were molested by older men grow up to be straight. In fact, we find about the same number of homosexuals in this group (the victims) as we do in any other random group of people. Being molested often creates many mental problems and sexual issues, but there is no evidence that it fundamentally changes sexual orientation. There just isn't any persuasive evidence that what you think is true.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 12, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> Actually what I said was kids man kids, when kids grow up with two dads or two moms what do you think happens... Most times those kids will turn out to be gay or have some serious issues. Thats why more and more gay people come about because kids who have developed their sexual urges yet see gay men on tv or in the street and they get messed up from it man. Do you really think its normal to want to have sex with a guy if you are a guy... That sh1t is taboo man and even though its legal it will always be


i know of a few kids that were raised by gay parents that came out straight. i know of no kids raised by gay parents that came out gay.

empirical evidence contradicts your simpleton world view.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (May 12, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> Ok man the whole gay thing makes no sense to me vaginas feel much better then ass and breast feel much better then chest anyone who says otherwise has mental problems man. And alot of homos come about because they were molested or something


That angry old man in your picture reminds me of you. I can see you waving your mighty bible around saying "Gays are infected by the DEVIL!" ... The only person I see with mental problems is you, what you've chose to learn and accept has corrupted your brain and that infection of hateful lies is there to stay, people like you are the reason theres wars and separation among people. You are hopeless.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 12, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> Ok man the whole gay thing makes no sense to me vaginas feel much better then ass and breast feel much better then chest anyone who says otherwise has mental problems man. And alot of homos come about because they were molested or something



You must have missed the reply to this..

Touch is subjective, vagina's might feel better _to you_, but to me, ass might feel better. You understand this, right? Why do politicians have the right to legislate on subjective matters that apply to everyone? They don't.


----------



## bombasticson (May 12, 2012)

I dont understand how people think gay marriage is good for society, men already outnumber women like 7 to 1 because of all the world wars..they started letting women in the army after vietnam I believe. So on top of that we gay men which for some reason is spreading like wildfire to people who never really new much about themselves, that brings about an unbalanced system everything has a working order and humans are at the top of that order. It is a natural instinct for one to be attracted to females, society created by being infested in sin... People lose their way when they never really had direction, which is why I know for a fact that most homos have mental problems man. For instance somebody told me a story about this guy in the neighborhood who dresses up like a girl and goes after straight guys... Why the hell do you people go after straight guys if your gay go with your own kind, you guys steady trying to mess with peoples heads. And that proves that most gay people have mental issues whether it be female or male I dont stand for any of it. I see through everything because I am a clairvoyant


----------



## bombasticson (May 12, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> i know of a few kids that were raised by gay parents that came out straight. i know of no kids raised by gay parents that came out gay.
> 
> empirical evidence contradicts your simpleton world view.



Dont all gay people start off straight... Wtf are you saying man see what I mean gay people dont make any sense.. to say you were born gay makes no sense why were you picked to be born gay?


----------



## bombasticson (May 12, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> That angry old man in your picture reminds me of you. I can see you waving your mighty bible around saying "Gays are infected by the DEVIL!" ... The only person I see with mental problems is you, what you've chose to learn and accept has corrupted your brain and that infection of hateful lies is there to stay, people like you are the reason theres wars and separation among people. You are hopeless.


Lol funny you should judge by a picture I picked it as an oxymoron Im nothing like that my face is always relaxed Im very content contempt.


----------



## InCognition (May 12, 2012)

UncleBuck said:


> logical fallacies are never the right way.


Some of your theories are logical fallacies as well, so who are you to speak?

Forcibly taking from a human being, to give to another. That's a logical fallacy, and hence why I logically call you a hypocrite.

Are you confused?



And on the topic of this subject, mother nature doesn't have any emotions or "norms" that reinforce "anti-gayness". Gay human beings exist because mother nature made them.

The theory that mother nature is subliminally "anti-gay", because homosexuality is not as common of an occurrence compared to it's counterpart, is absolutely the worst viewpoint to approach from.

In other words, mother nature doesn't give two shits if gay people take the world over. If there is a will, there is a way, and mother nature just doesn't care.


----------



## tyler.durden (May 12, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> I dont understand how people think gay marriage is good for society, men already outnumber women like 7 to 1 because of all the world wars..they started letting women in the army after vietnam I believe. So on top of that we gay men which for some reason is spreading like wildfire to people who never really new much about themselves, that brings about an unbalanced system everything has a working order and humans are at the top of that order. It is a natural instinct for one to be attracted to females, society created by being infested in sin... People lose their way when they never really had direction, which is why I know for a fact that most homos have mental problems man. For instance somebody told me a story about this guy in the neighborhood who dresses up like a girl and goes after straight guys... Why the hell do you people go after straight guys if your gay go with your own kind, you guys steady trying to mess with peoples heads. And that proves that most gay people have mental issues whether it be female or male I dont stand for any of it. *I see through everything because I am a clairvoyant*


Oh, you're a clairvoyant! Why didn't you say so straight away? Now we can safely take your posts with a shaker of salt. Betcha didn't know I would write that. I'm glad that you decided to post in this sub-forum: some people who see your posts may see a little of your thought process in themselves, be scared shitless at what they may become, and decide to re-examine their beliefs so as not to go further down your path. Good job...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 13, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> I dont understand how people think gay marriage is good for society, men already outnumber women like 7 to 1 because of all the world wars..they started letting women in the army after vietnam I believe. So on top of that we gay men which for some reason is spreading like wildfire to people who never really new much about themselves, that brings about an unbalanced system everything has a working order and humans are at the top of that order. It is a natural instinct for one to be attracted to females, society created by being infested in sin... People lose their way when they never really had direction, which is why I know for a fact that most homos have mental problems man. For instance somebody told me a story about this guy in the neighborhood who dresses up like a girl and goes after straight guys... Why the hell do you people go after straight guys if your gay go with your own kind, you guys steady trying to mess with peoples heads. And that proves that most gay people have mental issues whether it be female or male I dont stand for any of it. I see through everything because I am a clairvoyant



"men already outnumber women like 7 to 1", false; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio

"we gay men" - telling 

"it is a natural instinct for one to be attracted to females" - not for gay people. 

"people lose their way when they never really had direction" that is your evidence for why most _homo's _have mental problems.. Honestly...

Why one gay man would solicit heterosexual men is anyones guess, this doesn't give you the right to profile all homosexual men as predators who try to turn straight men gay. 


Is it impossible for you to understand that some people have alternate sexual desires than you do, or than are considered traditional (myself included, trust me!)? What's wrong with that? Why do you care, what do you have to do with it at all?


----------



## InCognition (May 13, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> I dont understand how people think gay marriage is good for society, men already outnumber women like 7 to 1 because of all the world wars..they started letting women in the army after vietnam I believe. So on top of that we gay men which for some reason is spreading like wildfire to people who never really new much about themselves, that brings about an unbalanced system everything has a working order and humans are at the top of that order. It is a natural instinct for one to be attracted to females, society created by being infested in sin... People lose their way when they never really had direction, which is why I know for a fact that most homos have mental problems man. For instance somebody told me a story about this guy in the neighborhood who dresses up like a girl and goes after straight guys... Why the hell do you people go after straight guys if your gay go with your own kind, you guys steady trying to mess with peoples heads. And that proves that most gay people have mental issues whether it be female or male I dont stand for any of it. I see through everything because I am a clairvoyant


And I don't understand how people like you think your mentality is good for society.... care to elaborate?

The only one who has any mental illness between you and gays, is yourself. 

All you're doing, is poorly trying to justify your own hatred, prejudice, and ignorance. That's all your reasoning is, it's just prejudice ignorance, period.

Your mind is so clouded with prejudice, that it's nearly impossible to explain to one such as yourself, as to why you're just flat-out incorrect, on your train of thought.

Have a great, ignorant day, and keep the blind prejudice rolling... it's people with those qualities (yourself) that "create a society being infested in sin" - as you so say.


----------



## bombasticson (May 13, 2012)

InCognition said:


> And I don't understand how people like you think your mentality is good for society.... care to elaborate?
> 
> The only one who has any mental illness between you and gays, is yourself.
> 
> ...


I have no hate for gay people or any people for that matter I have conversed with gays im not a homo fobe Im a clairvoyant most of the gay people i have seen have alot of issues man not like normal issues.


----------



## mindphuk (May 13, 2012)

[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOmqNKAuYdM[/video]

edit: what happened to embedded videos?


----------



## fssalaska (May 13, 2012)

Were all a little gay sometimes ! *From TropicThunder* lmao


----------



## Heisenberg (May 13, 2012)

[video=youtube;E5WtdeL1s7c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5WtdeL1s7c[/video]

Video posting is working for me.


----------



## bundee1 (May 13, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> I have no hate for gay people or any people for that matter I have conversed with gays im not a homo fobe Im a clairvoyant most of the gay people i have seen have alot of issues man not like normal issues.


Could it be because they have to live their whole lives dealing with people like you? If I thought you shouldnt exist and you spent everyday of your life being made to feel this way, you probably would have some psychological effects from it.


----------



## zat (May 13, 2012)

Netflix "For the Bible Tells Me So" It's an instant play movie. It honors "both sides" but in the end....it's obvious that one side continues to pass on false information....it's called "social reproduction theory" --we pass on our beliefs/values to our children/communities (through media, schools, churches, families, books, music, etc.) and they continue to adopt them and pass them onto the next generation. The majority of people do NOT deviate dramatically from the values/systems in which they were raised (well...a few of us do!) and the problem is it's easier to just believe what you were taught then it is to put energy into seeking the truth (b/c it's uncomfortable isn't it?). This is how oppression is born and perpetuated...and unfortunately our dear WileyCoyote is a wonderful example of this process.


----------



## april (May 13, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> Dont all gay people start off straight... Wtf are you saying man see what I mean gay people dont make any sense.. to say you were born gay makes no sense why were you picked to be born gay?



I grew up with a gay brother, he was NEVER interested in women in a sexual manner, how do i know this, i asked him. PLus i always knew, so yes people are born gay, straight, fat, black, and sometimes very ignorant. Is this not a simple concept to grasp?


----------



## ginjawarrior (May 13, 2012)

[youtube]Xd2PGkDecT8[/youtube]


----------



## neosapien (May 13, 2012)

I think there is something "abnormal" about supposed straight men that can't stop thinking and typing about gay men every day. 







What I mean is... you're probably gay. And that's OK.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 13, 2012)

neosapien said:


> I think there is something "abnormal" about supposed straight men that can't stop thinking and typing about gay men every day.


You might be onto something


What I mean is... you're probably gay. And that's OK.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 13, 2012)

InCognition said:


> Some of your theories are logical fallacies as well, so who are you to speak?
> 
> Forcibly taking from a human being, to give to another. That's a logical fallacy, and hence why I logically call you a hypocrite.
> 
> ...



impressive cross sub-forum trolling from a younger than 18 year old member.


----------



## bombasticson (May 13, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> No, gay people don't all start off straight, ive known some that when they were as young as they could remember, they just knew they liked people of the same sex. Im sorry, but if you are a straight male, and you dislike homosexual woman fucking around with eachother... there is something definately gay about you. And if you do like gay girls and you are a man, then why the fuck do you have a problem with gay men? Fag.


...Im not a hypocryte so I cant support gay women and if I dont support gay men all of that sh1t is taboo. And you people just continue to prove my point, you try to attack my sexuality like most gay men do to straight guys ive seen it on many occasions. Sorry man straight as a whistle, the whole gay seen is sad and terrible tragedy because you guys can never truly find eternal peace.


----------



## bombasticson (May 13, 2012)

Did you know that their are gay men these days who realize they have problems and go see priests to exorcise them.. After these exorcisms the gay men turn straight so I am certain you guys are mental


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 13, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> Did you know that their are gay men these days who realize they have problems and go see priests to exorcise them.. After these exorcisms the gay men turn straight so I am certain you guys are mental


A gay person couldn't _decide _to be straight any more than you could _decide_ to be gay. Can you _turn yourself_ gay right now? Go ahead and try. Are you gay now? 

What proponents of that argument fail to realize is that sexual orientation is not a conscious choice. It's as much a choice as choosing to be tall or choosing to be male or female.

Think about how absurd it would be and how foolish someone would look if they hated someone for being tall, absurd right? Now apply that to yourself to get a good look at how rational people view you.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 13, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> ...you guys can never truly find eternal peace.


bible thumper identified.

isn't bible thumping abnormal?


----------



## Heisenberg (May 13, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> Did you know that their are gay men these days who realize they have problems and go see priests to exorcise them.. After these exorcisms the gay men turn straight so I am certain you guys are mental



This is a good example of asserting prejudice and oppression based on the false authority you think your asinine belief in god affords you. If you think that homosexuality, or anyone's sexuality, is a choice then you are not educated enough to express any sort of informed opinion. It would be interesting to find out exactly what the process you went through when you chose to become heterosexual. It is certainly reasonable that if gays 'choose' then everyone does. Unless you think it is a choice for some, and not for others. I would find it quite a statistical anomaly to find out that only the people who actually choose who they are attracted to happen to all be gay.

Then to explore the ramifications of your logic, it is not a choice for straight people, it is automatic, but it is a choice for gay people. This would mean that those who have a choice always choose the same sex? I find that hard to believe. It seems much more logical and reflective of reality to assume gay people's sexual desire is also a result of natural instinct, unless you think your situation is unique. Your conclusions do not seem to be based in any sort of reasonable observation. Your belief tells you it's wrong and should be stopped, but you can not give any meaningful reason for this belief other than scripture. You think it's wrong because you were told, and you can not give even the slightest justification for why without incorporating fantasy and misrepresentation of reality. This is how you are required to view the world to coincide with your beliefs. It warps your reality and poisons your good will to your fellow man. It causes you to preach intolerance and exclusion over things which don't effect you in the slightest, and all in the name of God.

It's one thing to state your belief in god and attempt to explain why, it's another to use your belief in god to justify monomaniacal discrimination. When your attempts at logic and reason fail, you fall back on your scripture, somehow finding comfort and absolution in bigotry. I can't not think of a better description of perverse.


----------



## cannofbliss (May 13, 2012)

seriously??? 

not this shit again???

these threads about homosexuality being "weird" or "wrong" or "abnormal" pop up more than dicks do on viagra...

how many times does science have to answer these questions for you "bible thumpers"???

here... we'll just lie to you and give you guys the "answer" you "want to hear"...

being homo is "bad" and "wrong" and "evil"... and you thumpers are "justified" by your idiotic ideologies... for "believing" such crap about other peoples sexual preferences...

there... you happy now???

seriously get over it...


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 13, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Again, this is incorrect and you are not acknowledging the fact that animals do not feel a need to procreate, they feel a desire toward sex. Sex usually leads to procreation in nature which is why sexual reproduction is successful. You cannot however equate sexual desire with the desire to procreate. If you look at young males, the most virile of our species, they tend to desire to have sex with as many woman as possible while not getting attached to any. Woman, OTOH, have a desire for long-term relationships. From an evolutionary standpoint this makes since since that is what is necessary for raising a child but it is not procreation or raising children that give woman their emotional desire for close relationships. You seem to be confusing the goal of genes, which is to survive long enough to make as many copies of itself to continue on and the results that various genes have on the vehicle in which they find themselves, plant or animal. Do you really think that when plants and animals mate they understand that it is this action that will produce offspring? Like you say, humans are merely animals. Just because we can intellectually and consciously connect the sexual act with procreation does not mean that procreation is what we desire.


Well, I admit that you're a very intelligent person who could make a good argument in court that I was involved in the assination of President Lincoln. And I would sweat it out until a 2012 jury acquitted me...if in fact they would...

But I look for SIMPLE explanations, where they exist...and in the case of natural selection, I think they do...anything that inhibits the second-strongest desire in nature (desire to pass on genes) is unnatural, and is for some reason being discouraged by evolution...I didn't make these rules, nor do I applaud them...I just allow the evidence lead me where it naturally leads me...to the fact that these rules exist...whether I like it or not...


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 13, 2012)

cannofbliss said:


> seriously???
> 
> not this shit again???
> 
> ...


I'm not a Bible Thumper. Nor Have I ever been. I try to see the universe as it is. NOT as it's seen by right-wing Christians. NOR as it's seen by left-wing liberals. RATHER, as it IS...


----------



## bombasticson (May 13, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> This is a good example of asserting prejudice and oppression based on the false authority you think your asinine belief in god affords you. If you think that homosexuality, or anyone's sexuality, is a choice then you are not educated enough to express any sort of informed opinion. It would be interesting to find out exactly what the process you went through when you chose to become heterosexual. It is certainly reasonable that if gays 'choose' then everyone does. Unless you think it is a choice for some, and not for others. I would find it quite a statistical anomaly to find out that only the people who actually choose who they are attracted to happen to all be gay.
> 
> Then to explore the ramifications of your logic, it is not a choice for straight people, it is automatic, but it is a choice for gay people. This would mean that those who have a choice always choose the same sex? I find that hard to believe. It seems much more logical and reflective of reality to assume gay people's sexual desire is also a result of natural instinct, unless you think your situation is unique. Your conclusions do not seem to be based in any sort of reasonable observation. Your belief tells you it's wrong and should be stopped, but you can not give any meaningful reason for this belief other than scripture. You think it's wrong because you were told, and you can not give even the slightest justification for why without incorporating fantasy and misrepresentation of reality. This is how you are required to view the world to coincide with your beliefs. It warps your reality and poisons your good will to your fellow man. It causes you to preach intolerance and exclusion over things which don't effect you in the slightest, and all in the name of God.
> 
> It's one thing to state your belief in god and attempt to explain why, it's another to use your belief in god to justify monomaniacal discrimination. When your attempts at logic and reason fail, you fall back on your scripture, somehow finding comfort and absolution in bigotry. I can't not think of a better description of perverse.


Why are there no animals that turn out gay... the only ones that are which I have heard of are ones that scientists made gay by changing how the animals brain worked. Which means gay peoples heads are not normal. Case closed, there is no way that someone is born gay because what makes you born gay and not someone else?


----------



## Heisenberg (May 13, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Well, I admit that you're a very intelligent person who could make a good argument in court that I was involved in the assination of President Lincoln. And I would sweat it out until a 2012 jury acquitted me...if in fact they would...
> 
> But I look for SIMPLE explanations, where they exist...and in the case of natural selection, I think they do...anything that inhibits the second-strongest desire in nature (desire to pass on genes) is unnatural, and is for some reason being discouraged by evolution...I didn't make these rules, nor do I applaud them...I just allow the evidence lead me where it naturally leads me...to the fact that these rules exist...whether I like it or not...


Rather than refute the assertion that desire is about pleasure, and not specifically to pass on genes, you have simply restated your original argument. 

Mother nature utilizes sex drive as a way to procreate. I give no argument that the goal of a sex drive is procreation. Never the less, a sex drive leads to all sorts of acts that do not serve to pass on genes, many of which are not seen as abnormal. The goal shared by all these acts is pleasure, not impregnation. You are giving no clear distinction for why homosexual acts are separate from acts such as oral sex and masturbation. My sex drive causes me to want a blowjob. This does not help pass on my genes in any way. How it is relevant if the other person involved in the blowjob is a male or female? Neither sex makes the chance of passing on my genes any better. When I masturbate, is there a better chance of a baby if I think about girls rather than boys? Millions of people daily incorporate birth control into their sexual gratifications, it's not seen as abnormal.

Your premise just doesn't hold up when we apply it to reality.


----------



## mindphuk (May 13, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Well, I admit that you're a very intelligent person who could make a good argument in court that I was involved in the assination of President Lincoln. And I would sweat it out until a 2012 jury acquitted me...if in fact they would...
> 
> But I look for SIMPLE explanations, where they exist...and in the case of natural selection, I think they do...anything that inhibits the second-strongest desire in nature (desire to pass on genes) is unnatural, and is for some reason being discouraged by evolution...I didn't make these rules, nor do I applaud them...I just allow the evidence lead me where it naturally leads me...to the fact that these rules exist...whether I like it or not...


You are making up rules. You are ignoring someone that deals with evolution for a living. I do not like to pull out the authority card but since you have not been able to support your belief that we have a primary innate desire to pass along our genes, I will just explain to you again that you are wrong and continuing to state that this is fact and not just your personal understanding of natural selection is not going to fly. You are purposely mischaracterizing evolutionary theory in order to continue to state your belief and you're trying to tell someone that has a doctorate and a picture of Darwin for his avatar is somehow wrong about his understanding of evolution.


Maybe you will answer some questions I will propose using the Socratic method to help you understand. 
If I were to vasectomize a dominant male chimpanzee, do you think that would kill his desire to continue to mate with females? He is unable to pass along his genes, therefore his desire should be gone, right?
If I put a hot naked girl in front of you and then told you she was on the pill or was otherwise sterile, does that remove any of your desire to fuck her? 
Do you think young people that engage in highly dangerous behavior are abnormal? Skydiving, race car driving, commercial fishing, etc. all will increase the likelihood that genes will NOT get passed along because the person will be dead yet those are typically associated with manly men. Contradiction or maybe your understanding of behavior and evolution is incomplete?


----------



## tyler.durden (May 13, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> Why are there no animals that turn out gay... the only ones that are which I have heard of are ones that scientists made gay by changing how the animals brain worked. Which means gay peoples heads are not normal. Case closed, there is no way that someone is born gay because what makes you born gay and not someone else?


You do not find information about what you do not know because you do not seek it. Pad had to close another recent thread regarding homosexuality because it became an unmanageable troll fest, or you may have seen these links:

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

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

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

This last link lists 1500 animal species that exhibit homosexual behavior. It seems that internet search engines are vastly superior to your clairvoyance when it comes to acquiring knowledge. Bring up a Google tab and do your own fucking homework...


----------



## Heisenberg (May 13, 2012)

bombasticson said:


> Why are there no animals that turn out gay... the only ones that are which I have heard of are ones that scientists made gay by changing how the animals brain worked. Which means gay peoples heads are not normal. Case closed, there is no way that someone is born gay because what makes you born gay and not someone else?


A closed mind is one that rejects investigation while still wanting the comfort of opinion. It takes about 10 seconds of investigation to produce

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


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 13, 2012)

This is a good reflection of society and something I've been thinking a lot about lately, I'd like to hear your guys' opinions on it especially. 

At what point do we say "we're right, it no longer matters what you say because you can't defend it" and move on? Clearly Wiley isn't going to accept that there's nothing abnormal about homosexuality. Why continue to try to explain it to people like this? 

I think we need to come up with some sort of mechanism where when a claim is made, supported and defended with science and logic, everything else is dismissed on the basis of reason. Someone like this keeps on arguing with the established, supported and defended claim, we show them the evidence and if they don't accept it, clearly they're irrational. 

I mean, it's to the point where the denial is just absurd! 

2+2=4

No it doesn't, 2+2=5

How do you figure that? 1+1+1+1=4..

No, you're wrong... 2+2=5

Well how did you add? Are you sure you did it correctly?

Obviously.. I came up with the right answer didn't I? 5

...but 2+2 doesn't = 5, that's what I'm trying to tell you... 

Well I'm going to choose to believe that it does, so you believe what you want, I'll believe what I want.


These people don't seem to understand that there are certain things, a lot of things, that are true whether they believe they're true or not..


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 13, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> You are making up rules. You are ignoring someone that deals with evolution for a living. I do not like to pull out the authority card but since you have not been able to support your belief that we have a primary innate desire to pass along our genes, I will just explain to you again that you are wrong and continuing to state that this is fact and not just your personal understanding of natural selection is not going to fly. You are purposely mischaracterizing evolutionary theory in order to continue to state your belief and you're trying to tell someone that has a doctorate and a picture of Darwin for his avatar is somehow wrong about his understanding of evolution.
> 
> 
> Maybe you will answer some questions I will propose using the Socratic method to help you understand.
> ...


Well, I wish you hadn&#8217;t told me that you have a doctorate. Because I actually respected you before that, even if I did disagree with you. But now you&#8217;ve lost my respect completely.

I have a degree in math and computer science. And I work as a Computer Engineer. Nothing to brag about, I know. But my supervisor has a doctorate in computer science. And I have to almost daily correct her in basic programming algorithms. She has great oratorical prowess, much like you; and she writes wonderfully complex papers (I&#8217;ve read them) and uses long sentences and big words, much like you.

But much like you, she is full of herself and has to be corrected by &#8220;peons&#8221; like me all the time. Doctors of Philosophy generally teach because they cannot do.

Do yourself a favor in the future and refrain from mentioning your doctorate to strangers or new acquaintances, if you want to command their respect.

To answer your questions:


OF COURSE, a chimpanzee can&#8217;t tell whether he&#8217;s had a vasectomy or not, so it wouldn&#8217;t serve to lessen his desire for sex. But cut his balls off, Mr. p.HD., and he would completely lose his desire to have sex.
No male cares whether his super-model girlfriend is on the pill or not, as far as his genetically-controlled animalistic desires are concerned. The desire to procreate is not mindful; it&#8217;s physical.
Don&#8217;t you see what I mean about your doctorate blinding you and serving as an indicator that you are useless to real-world science?


----------



## Heisenberg (May 13, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Well, I wish you hadn&#8217;t told me that you have a doctorate. Because I actually respected you before that, even if I did disagree with you. But now you&#8217;ve lost my respect.
> 
> I have a degree in math and computer science. And I work as a Computer Engineer. Nothing to brag about, I know. But my supervisor has a doctorate in computer science. And I have to almost daily correct her in basic programming algorithms. She has great oratorical prowess, much like you; and she writes wonderfully complex papers (I&#8217;ve read them) and uses long sentences and big words, much like you.
> 
> ...


^This is the very definition of bias. You demonstrate an irrational distrust for authority. In the world of transparent academics, this bias seems abnormal.

Rest assured that I have no qualifications beyond a high school GED. Your arguments have been rather well refuted, whether you chose to acknowledge it or not. Your lack of a counter suggests you do not have one, as regurgitation of your ordinal premise does not count. Your position breaks down to one of special pleading. You are essentially saying, "This one thing that I don't like should be considered abnormal on the exact same criteria shared by things that I do like and aren't abnormal. This one thing is special and I can't explain why'.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 13, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Well, I wish you hadn&#8217;t told me that you have a doctorate. Because I actually respected you before that, even if I did disagree with you. But now you&#8217;ve lost my respect completely.
> 
> I have a degree in math and computer science. And I work as a Computer Engineer. Nothing to brag about, I know. But my supervisor has a doctorate in computer science. And I have to almost daily correct her in basic programming algorithms. She has great oratorical prowess, much like you; and she writes wonderfully complex papers (I&#8217;ve read them) and uses long sentences and big words, much like you.
> 
> ...


Thank you for proving my previous post.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 13, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Thank you for proving my previous post.


The only thing you've proven is that you can forge someone's response.


----------



## WileyCoyote (May 13, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Rest assured that I have no qualifications beyond a high school GED. Your arguments have been rather well refuted, whether you chose to acknowledge it or not. Your lack of a counter suggests you do not have one, as regurgitation of your ordinal premise does not count. Your position breaks down to one of special pleading. You are essentially saying, "This one thing that I don't like should be considered abnormal on the exact same criteria shared by things that I do like and aren't abnormal. This one thing is special and I can't explain why'.


I don't think my arguments have been refuted at all. Rather, I think your reactions are knee-jerk in nature, much like the fundamentalist Christians you loathe...you are no different than them...you just "dog mate" about different things than they do.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 13, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> I'm not a Bible Thumper. Nor Have I ever been. I try to see the universe as it is. NOT as it's seen by right-wing Christians. NOR as it's seen by left-wing liberals. RATHER, as it IS...


and that involves mother nature having wants and intentions.

lol keep trying bro.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 13, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> I don't think my arguments have been refuted at all.


you refuted yourself when you posited that mother nature has wants and intentions.

are you all of 17 years old? 14?


----------



## Heisenberg (May 13, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> I don't think my arguments have been refuted at all. Rather, I think your reactions are knee-jerk in nature, much like the fundamentalist Christians you loathe...you are no different than them...you just "dog mate" about different things than they do.


Ah yes, and now the false dilemma. Why are you the one resorting to cheap debate tricks?

I have seen you ignore much of the counter to your position, and discount the rest based on ad hominem grounds. This is what we call dogmatic. Your position is entirely without intellectual merit, supported only by hollow logic and dubious tactics.


----------



## tharoomman (May 13, 2012)

I don't really think its any of our business what two connecting adults want to do in the privacy of their own home or what not.


----------



## tharoomman (May 13, 2012)

Wanna know whats disturbing to me? That so many people care about it. Such a big ordeal over things that plays NO part in any of our lives. So sad about NC. Knew thats how the cards were gonna fall though.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 13, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> The only thing you've proven is that you can forge someone's response.


Not sure if you can call it that when it's got "Last edited by: Padawanbater2" at the bottom, regardless, you didn't deserve the pseudo-respect it brought you anyway.

You've failed on such epic proportions at this point, I can't imagine anyone who will take you seriously from now on. 

Have a pleasant stay.



tharoomman said:


> I don't really think its any of our business what two connecting adults want to do in the privacy of their own home or what not.


The retards obstructing progress would counter that with "THE CHILDRENZ!" or "the moral fabric of society will be destroyed if the gaaaaaaays can marry!" or "I'm just repressing my own sexual urges and if I see someone else do exactly what I'm doing inside my head 356 days of the year I won't be able to control myself! I'll need that big cock!". They feel it is their business because it happens within the society they live. Yeah, terrible logic I know, but you're going to be disappointed if you're expecting anything resembling logic to come out of the homophobe camp..


----------



## mindphuk (May 13, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Well, I wish you hadn&#8217;t told me that you have a doctorate. Because I actually respected you before that, even if I did disagree with you. But now you&#8217;ve lost my respect completely.


It does mean that I have completed extensive study into my field of biology. I never asked you to respect me but I asked you to listen to the knowledge I believe I can deliver on this particular subject. 



> I have a degree in math and computer science. And I work as a Computer Engineer. Nothing to brag about, I know. But my supervisor has a doctorate in computer science. And I have to almost daily correct her in basic programming algorithms. She has great oratorical prowess, much like you; and she writes wonderfully complex papers (I&#8217;ve read them) and uses long sentences and big words, much like you.
> 
> But much like you, she is full of herself and has to be corrected by &#8220;peons&#8221; like me all the time. Doctors of Philosophy generally teach because they cannot do.


I am not a teacher, I actually work for a living. If you really believe that everyone gets advanced degrees for the same reasons and we all sit up in ivory towers, you are a fucking idiot. I don't know how computer science works but AFAIK, getting a doctorate there does not mean you have programming skills above or beyond a 14 year old hacker but I will tell you an advanced degree in one of the hard sciences usually is more a matter of specialization. We get to know are specific area of science very well. 


> Do yourself a favor in the future and refrain from mentioning your doctorate to strangers or new acquaintances, if you want to command their respect.


If you re-read my post, I did not post it to command respect, in fact I usually refrain from posting information about myself here in these forums but I did so because you seem to be arguing a point that,
a) you have never provided any evidence that you are right, you have merely made this assertion that you think everyone knows is self-evident
b) I personally deal with natural selection on a daily basis where I'm sure you are like most people and have had only a couple of courses which are entirely insufficient to understand much of the details and are probably not familiar with current works on the subject

I brought it up to be helpful and to let you know that I am not just some random internet guy trying to correct your misunderstanding of such a complex issue of sex in evolution.


> To answer your questions:
> 
> 
> OF COURSE, a chimpanzee can&#8217;t tell whether he&#8217;s had a vasectomy or not, so it wouldn&#8217;t serve to lessen his desire for sex. But cut his balls off, Mr. p.HD., and he would completely lose his desire to have sex.


So you admit that the vehicle for the genes, the chimp, does not care whether or not he is passing along genes, he just has some innate desire to have sex. 
Good. We can agree on that



> No male cares whether his super-model girlfriend is on the pill or not, as far as his genetically-controlled animalistic desires are concerned. The desire to procreate is not mindful; it&#8217;s physical.


Again, you agree that this innate desire to breed and pass along genes is actually controlled by a desire to have sex, not an actual desire to make children. Because if it were a desire to make children, the sterility would be a factor that decreases attractiveness or desire to mate. 


> Don&#8217;t you see what I mean about your doctorate blinding you and serving as an indicator that you are useless to real-world science?


If you stop insulting me, I will continue to try to teach you.

So we have established that animals, including humans, do not have a primary drive to have children but to have sex. Genes OTOH, are concerned with passing themselves down through successive generations, but cannot control this directly so they use tricks to make the vehicle in which they find themselves more likely than not to pass them along. They give human males a strong sex drive to breed with as many females as possible. Our genes have other tricks too like making us react to babies as cute and instill some desire to have one but those things are far less effective than the brute force attack of fucking everything in sight. Woman OTOH, have less time and a limited supply of genetic material do have more instinctual desires to have children than men, but they are also less intense than the desire to have sex. However, since we are primarily talking about gay men, then it stands to reason that they have no more desire to procreate than you are I do but the genes that code for sexual urges are still working fine.


----------



## mindphuk (May 13, 2012)

Interesting article
http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html


----------



## polyarcturus (May 13, 2012)

well i dont know where this thread is going but sex for pleasure is normal, and but stricly homosexual behavior is abnormal, since the drive to procreate also exists. in nature animale will have sex with the both genders for fun, but mainly have sex with females for both reasons often times animals will not show homosexual behavior if there is a large female to male ratio. there are a lot of studys on this. srictly same gender sex is abnormal usually exact through extreme circumstances. bisexual behavior is normal. all gay men that have sex with men only are lieng to themselves they still have the drive to procreat, why do you think they adopt? same thing with females all they want is a finger a tongue whatever as long as it sticks em in way they like!


on another note as a man i am dominate and prefer to stick it in rather than get stuck, so i dont go out of my way to have sex with men(why would i?!?!plenty of women, i want kids and i dont want shit on dick daily ect), also women are overall a more attractive creature then men.


----------



## mindphuk (May 14, 2012)

polyarcturus said:


> well i dont know where this thread is going but sex for pleasure is normal, and but stricly homosexual behavior is abnormal, since the drive to procreate also exists.


----------



## UncleBuck (May 14, 2012)

polyarcturus said:


> well i dont know where this thread is going but sex for pleasure is normal, and but stricly homosexual behavior is abnormal, since the drive to procreate also exists. in nature animale will have sex with the both genders for fun, but mainly have sex with females for both reasons often times animals will not show homosexual behavior if there is a large female to male ratio. there are a lot of studys on this. srictly same gender sex is abnormal usually exact through extreme circumstances. bisexual behavior is normal. all gay men that have sex with men only are lieng to themselves they still have the drive to procreat, why do you think they adopt? same thing with females all they want is a finger a tongue whatever as long as it sticks em in way they like!
> 
> 
> on another note as a man i am dominate and prefer to stick it in rather than get stuck, so i dont go out of my way to have sex with men(why would i?!?!plenty of women, i want kids and i dont want shit on dick daily ect), also women are overall a more attractive creature then men.


it's funny how the people that call homosexuality abnormal rather than uncommon always make an allusion to anal sex somewhere in their post.

uncanny.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 14, 2012)

What it always boils down to is "it's icky!"... really.. I thought people were a little more mature than that shit. 

I think these kinds of people were just extremely sheltered or lived in really conservative places or something, that's my best guess. Who cares What you think is icky and what gives you the right to dictate how others behave based on that abstract, intangible, subjective bullshit? Are you retarded? Because I think you're retarded. If I gave you a test and all you had to do to pass it was write your name correctly across the top, you'd fail that because that's how retarded you are. I think mayonnaise is icky, the fuck with your sandwich, put that shit down, you can't have it anymore. See how retarded that is and you are for somehow thinking that's the correct way to live? 

Those people are little kids trapped in shells of an older person.


----------



## Darwin Riddle (May 14, 2012)

There are actually a great ratio of homosexual men who don't engage in anal sex....and plenty of heterosexual people have anal sex. I guess that just means that some people like it and some people don't. I still don't see why, you guys, are still talking about this and giving Wiley the gay attention that he is looking for.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 14, 2012)

If you want to troll, every thread you open will be closed and subsequently deleted in this subforum. 

Count on it.


----------

