Author Topic: An interesting take on a debate question..  (Read 731 times)

Offline AKS\/\/ulfe

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4287
An interesting take on a debate question..
« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2004, 02:38:00 PM »
JB73 is a self hating fudge packer.
-SW

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Re: Re: An interesting take on a debate question..
« Reply #16 on: October 15, 2004, 02:39:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by myelo
Homsexuality is “natural” in that it occurs in nature. Homosexuality is  present in many species, including species of apes, such as bonobos, in which homosexuality is an ordinary component of sexual behavior.


Not the greatest of examples, Bonobos are extremely endangered, only 2 or 3,000 left in central Africa.  

Although the precipitous population drop is due to human factors, if they were reproducing like rabbits, it might help.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
An interesting take on a debate question..
« Reply #17 on: October 15, 2004, 02:41:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by JB73
like any inherited trait according  to you evolutionists it would slowly dissapate, NOT proliferate and expand like is it. there seems to be a vertible boom in gayness,  and that goes against every "law" of evolution. any trait that is undesirable, or impeding to the advance of the species should not proliferate.


How is it that infertility still exists.  By you logic it should have been bred out long ago?


Quote
well now you have an excuse, you were born to do it genetically.


How do you explain this "deviant" behaviour in other animals?

Offline JB73

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8780
An interesting take on a debate question..
« Reply #18 on: October 15, 2004, 02:44:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
JB73 is a self hating fudge packer.
-SW
thank you for that consice analysis of me. it all makes sence now.
I don't know what to put here yet.

Offline JB73

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8780
An interesting take on a debate question..
« Reply #19 on: October 15, 2004, 02:57:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Thrawn
How is it that infertility still exists.  By you logic it should have been bred out long ago?
i only used the evolution against itself. if you think logically about it, none of it makes sense.

heck there are so many fundamental flaws in it i cant see how anyone would believe it.

as for my personal thoughts on infertility, genetic mutations brought on by environment. different chemicals in the world around us are known to cause sterility in both men and women, and it is not possible to track all of these in every thing we eat, breathe, drink, or come in contact with. heck it could be radiation from television that increases the risks of infertility. i dont know.


i do know what i believe, and what i trust in. and that will not be changed.
I don't know what to put here yet.

Offline Chortle

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 419
An interesting take on a debate question..
« Reply #20 on: October 15, 2004, 03:03:55 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by JB73
well said...

i am not afraid of them, i dont like them and they go against my religion

Torque, dont throw your aithest evolutionist stuff this way, i wont bother responding.


if it is genetic, how dows it proliferate? how is it "passed on" when true homo's dont reproduce?


Genes are passed down from generation to generation but the offspring isn't just the combined DNA of its parents, the grandparents, great grandparents etc are also present. The characteristics are determined by which genes are dominant and which are recessive. Check out that Monk guy and his sweet pea plants.

like any inherited trait according  to you evolutionists it would slowly dissapate, NOT proliferate and expand like is it. there seems to be a vertible boom in gayness,  and that goes against every "law" of evolution. any trait that is undesirable, or impeding to the advance of the species should not proliferate.

Maybe queer bashing is not as popular as before so they feel safer coming out. Perhaps a world population of 6 billion and counting, when there aren't enough resources for those already here, queenliness is our species way of ensuring future survival

either way saying you are "born gay" is just another excuse for a deviant lifestyle. you ever want to squash a cricket even though there was no reason to? it was just not right, you were told not to do it, but you wanted to the the "bad" thing?

well now you have an excuse, you were born to do it genetically.


Thats your opinion and your entitled to it

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
An interesting take on a debate question..
« Reply #21 on: October 15, 2004, 03:15:21 PM »
JB, the it's not genetics of the child that determines if they will be a homosexual, it's the genetics of the mother.  

The theory is that fetus starts of as gender neutral, during the gestation process the mother releases hormones into the amneotic fluid which affect physical and mental gender aspects.  As the mother has more children, the greater the chances that the she will release hormones that will creat a homosexual child.

This is how it can be passed on even if the homosexual doesn't procreate.

Offline OIO

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
An interesting take on a debate question..
« Reply #22 on: October 15, 2004, 04:14:35 PM »
I think its both. I think theres a genetic predisposition to being 'gay' (by this i mean its not like they are born and immediately are gay from birth, but that genetically they are more likely to become gay ... kinda like people are genetically more prone to being fat while others can stuff their faces all day and do no excercise and still be thin as a chopstick).

And I think that the enviroment is largely responsible. In a nutshell if I raise a kid and tell him or her during all his childhood and puberty that men do it with men then yeah, theres a very good chance he'll be gay. Not a choice thing but a learned thing.

Offline Lizking

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2502
An interesting take on a debate question..
« Reply #23 on: October 15, 2004, 04:18:14 PM »
I think some of you guys use Lamarkian genetics.

Offline Torque

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2091
An interesting take on a debate question..
« Reply #24 on: October 15, 2004, 04:20:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Lizking
I think some of you guys use Lamarkian genetics.


You mean Lamarckian.

Offline Lizking

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2502
An interesting take on a debate question..
« Reply #25 on: October 15, 2004, 04:22:35 PM »
Spelling and grammar are not my strengths.

Offline capt. apathy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4240
      • http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Bandits=danger.wav
An interesting take on a debate question..
« Reply #26 on: October 15, 2004, 04:37:43 PM »
I always found it amusing that people think that just because they have seen certain behavior in animals, it means this behavior is 'normal' or 'natural'.  like profound evidence is some sort of absolute proof.

it's as if they believe mental illness, psychological damage from trauma, learned behavior, conditioning, responses to environmental variables, or other issues that can produce deviant behavior afflict humans exclusively.

just because you once saw a messed up animal exhibit a certain behavior, doesn't make that behavior normal or natural.

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
An interesting take on a debate question..
« Reply #27 on: October 15, 2004, 04:42:23 PM »
Depends on your definition of "natural" capt.  In my opinion humans, and all other life forms can't do anything unnatural, because we are of nature.

There can be atypical behaviour, but not unnatural.

Offline Lizking

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2502
An interesting take on a debate question..
« Reply #28 on: October 15, 2004, 04:45:14 PM »
So if I dump the oil from my car into my neighbors yard that is natural?  Gaping wounds in the Earth from strip mining, animal extinctions, etc?  All natural events.

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
An interesting take on a debate question..
« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2004, 04:50:56 PM »
Here is a picture of a natural strip mine:


as for animal extinctions, about 60 million years ago, at 2:35 GMT on a beautiful Tuesday afternoon, a velociraptor pack crept up on a  immature delaptadon....
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!