# If Homosexuality is Genetic ......



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

... and not behavioral, then how come it is since homosexuals cannot reproduce that the defective gene has not been bred out of humans through natural section?


----------



## nt250 (Sep 10, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> ... and not behavioral, then how come it is since homosexuals cannot reproduce that the defective gene has not been bred out of humans through natural section?



No offense, but that sentence should be taken out and shot.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 10, 2006)

> ... and not behavioral, then how come it is since homosexuals cannot reproduce that the defective gene has not been bred out of humans through natural section?


There have been a few scientific studies that explain the supposed paradox between 'homosexuality genes' and Darwin's theories. See here for an article about one study and here for the Proceedings of the Royal Society article on that study.

Of course, if you read either article it specifically states that the genetic effect only accounts for a small percentage of homosexuality and more study is needed in order to better determine the role that genetics plays in determining if a person will become homosexual or not.

I hope that answers your immediate question.


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> There have been a few scientific studies that explain the supposed paradox between 'homosexuality genes' and Darwin's theories. See here for an article about one study and here for the Proceedings of the Royal Society article on that study.
> 
> Of course, if you read either article it specifically states that the genetic effect only accounts for a small percentage of homosexuality and more study is needed in order to better determine the role that genetics plays in determining if a person will become homosexual or not.
> 
> I hope that answers your immediate question.



Those articles are all fine and dandy, but you have to keep in mind homosexuality has never been proven to be genetic. 

I think that's Gunny's point.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 10, 2006)

That's true, it hasn't been proven, but the study I linked to gives the indication that genetics plays some role, minor as it may be. More studies are needed, I think, before we can be more sure of that role.


----------



## Nuc (Sep 10, 2006)

Even if it's not genetic, it might be a psychological result of certain circumstances that form the individual. And they may not be able to control their feelings. Every gay I know says it was always present in them. The idea that gays choose that lifestyle to be wacky or rebellious doesn't make a lot of sense to me based on my personal observations.


----------



## Annie (Sep 10, 2006)

I may be way wrong, but think there is a genetic component in majority. With the new standards in our secular world, where kids as young as 10 and 11 are giving bj's and see bi-sex as normal, I'm more uncertain on the totality of such. 

I will say, more obvious for males than females, it's pretty easy to spot the genetic predestined in k-1, than heteros. Some that seem hetero, may take one by surprise, rarely those that seem homosexual.


----------



## nt250 (Sep 10, 2006)

Nuc said:


> Even if it's not genetic, it might be a psychological result of certain circumstances that form the individual. And they may not be able to control their feelings. Every gay I know says it was always present in them. The idea that gays choose that lifestyle to be wacky or rebellious doesn't make a lot of sense to me based on my personal observations.




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

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


----------



## Nuc (Sep 10, 2006)

nt250 said:


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



In my experience what you are saying here applies much more to lesbians than to male homosexuals.


----------



## Nuc (Sep 10, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> I will say, more obvious for males than females, it's pretty easy to spot the genetic predestined in k-1, than heteros. Some that seem hetero, may take one by surprise, rarely those that seem homosexual.



I agree. I am doing my own personal study. I know two boys who I suspect will end up being gay. One is 3 and the other is 8. Later on I will find out if my instincts are correct. Too late for this thread though!


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

nt250 said:


> No offense, but that sentence should be taken out and shot.



Rreally?  Why is that?  Seems to me it kinda' shoots holes right through the bogus "hereditary" theory.


----------



## Annie (Sep 10, 2006)

Nuc said:


> In my experience what you are saying here applies much more to lesbians than to male homosexuals.



I think you are right. I'd also venture to guess, no more than that, that there are more genetically inclined homosexuals than lesbians. I've no clue why, but will say that at very tender ages one can see this in some boys; much more rare in girls.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> There have been a few scientific studies that explain the supposed paradox between 'homosexuality genes' and Darwin's theories. See here for an article about one study and here for the Proceedings of the Royal Society article on that study.
> 
> Of course, if you read either article it specifically states that the genetic effect only accounts for a small percentage of homosexuality and more study is needed in order to better determine the role that genetics plays in determining if a person will become homosexual or not.
> 
> I hope that answers your immediate question.



I already know the answer to the question.

So these studies not only claim homosexuality is hereditary, but because it does not die out through natural selection that it is also a "special" hereditary gene.  Guess that about covers it, huh?:scratch:


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

Nuc said:


> Even if it's not genetic, it might be a psychological result of certain circumstances that form the individual. And they may not be able to control their feelings. Every gay I know says it was always present in them. The idea that gays choose that lifestyle to be wacky or rebellious doesn't make a lot of sense to me based on my personal observations.



Sure, if you put it within the parameters of _conscious _choice.  It has been my observation that young people; especially teenagers, don't apply a whole lot of logic to their choices and even less consideration to the possible consequences resulting from them.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


> Those articles are all fine and dandy, but you have to keep in mind homosexuality has never been proven to be genetic.
> 
> I think that's Gunny's point.



Exactly my point.  Those who argue the pro-homo side make absolute statements when there is no evidence to support them.  

My "study" is every bit as valid.  Natural selection would weed out most abnormalities; especially, when those who carry them are themselves incapable of reproduction due to their lifestyle.  Guess there's just too much logic involved.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 10, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> I already know the answer to the question.
> 
> So these studies not only claim homosexuality is hereditary, but because it does not die out through natural selection that it is also a "special" hereditary gene.  Guess that about covers it, huh?:scratch:



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

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


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> Sorry, I didn't realize that your question was rhetorical in nature. Irregardless, I don't believe that is what the articles are getting at - it isn't, if I am reading the articles correctly, strictly genetic in nature. If the female parent is more fertile when producing offspring, it is more likely that said offspring will be homosexual, so it has something to do with the hormones that are produced by the mother while the child is in gestation.
> 
> According to that theory, if you controlled the conditions while the child was in gestation, you could 'control' whether or not they were 'predisposed' towards homosexuality / bi-sexuality.



No you DIDN'T just call me on a rhetorical question then use the word "irregardless."  :rotflmao: 

Honestly, I do not give much credence to the article.  Every argument, study, article, et al  I have ever seen is either slanted hard for, or hard against. 

Just thought I'd throw out a little logic based on an accepted theory and see where it went.  What I DON'T see, are any of the board's usual suspects 
(pro-homo faction) rushing in to defend genetic stance.


----------



## Annie (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> Sorry, I didn't realize that your question was rhetorical in nature. Irregardless, I don't believe that is what the articles are getting at - it isn't, if I am reading the articles correctly, strictly genetic in nature. If the female parent is more fertile when producing offspring, it is more likely that said offspring will be homosexual, so it has something to do with the hormones that are produced by the mother while the child is in gestation.
> 
> According to that theory, if you controlled the conditions while the child was in gestation, you could 'control' whether or not they were 'predisposed' towards homosexuality / bi-sexuality.


'More fertile'? Hello? Where is this coming from? New one here. That's not 'genetics' btw, but endocrineology. Hello????


----------



## Nuc (Sep 10, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> What I DON'T see, are any of the board's usual suspects
> (pro-homo faction) rushing in to defend genetic stance.



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

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

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


----------



## Reneer (Sep 10, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> 'More fertile'? Hello? Where is this coming from? New one here. That's not 'genetics' btw, but endocrineology. Hello????



I was merely trying to interpret the article and help further the discussion. The article was referring to women who are more fertile than others, and the effect that had on whether the offspring was homosexual.


----------



## nt250 (Sep 10, 2006)

Nuc said:


> In my experience what you are saying here applies much more to lesbians than to male homosexuals.




That's definately my experience, too.


----------



## nt250 (Sep 10, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Rreally?  Why is that?  Seems to me it kinda' shoots holes right through the bogus "hereditary" theory.



Sorry.  I was trying to be funny.

You gotta admit that sentence is a little convoluted.  But, hey, we all have our moments.


----------



## Annie (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> I was merely trying to interpret the article (here.) It was referring to women who are more fertile than others, and the effect that had on whether the offspring was homosexual.



More 'fertile'? They had litters instead of one? I'll admit, with this terminology and no further explanation, I'm disinclined towards reading your links.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 10, 2006)

I was trying to not color the article with my own views. Sorry if that disinclined you to reading it.

From the article in question:


> Abstract:
> 
> The Darwinian paradox of male homosexuality in humans is examined, i.e. if male homosexuality has a genetic component and homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals, then why is this trait maintained in the population? In a sample of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives (a total of over 4600 individuals), we found that female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives. The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first-born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters. We discuss the findings and their implications for current research on male homosexuality.


----------



## Annie (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> I was trying to not color the article with my own views. Sorry if that disinclined you to reading it.
> 
> From the article in question:







> that homosexual males are *more often later-born than first-born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters.* We discuss the findings and their implications for current research on male homosexuality.
> Edit/Delete Message


 Do you notice a problem with the bolded?


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> That's true, it hasn't been proven, but the study I linked to gives the indication that genetics plays some role, minor as it may be. More studies are needed, I think, before we can be more sure of that role.



All I contend is, that until it's been proven that genetics plays ANY role, why say it does?

I don't believe it is genetic. I believe it's a sickness, just like Polio, or cancer, and it should be treated. Even it was proven at some point to be genetic, it should still be treated as an illness. People are predisposed to have cancer by a cancer gene, and they're treated for that.


----------



## nt250 (Sep 10, 2006)

Nuc said:


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




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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Annie (Sep 10, 2006)

nt250 said:


> Anybody with working eyeballs can tell that some people are homosexual by genetic traits.  k.d. lange.  Lance Bass.
> 
> I've known two gay men in real life and both of them were raging queens.  They couldn't have hid their homosexuality if they tried to.
> 
> ...



I won't commit to right or wrong here, but the standard parameters of 'true homosexuality' has been about 2% for many years.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 10, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> Do you notice a problem with the bolded?



No, I don't notice a problem with the bolded part of your quote. Is there something I'm missing?



Pale Rider said:


> All I contend is, that until it's been proven that genetics plays ANY role, why say it does?
> 
> I don't believe it is genetic. I believe it's a sickness, just like Polio, or cancer, and it should be treated. Even it was proven at some point to be genetic, it should still be treated as an illness. People are predisposed to have cancer by a cancer gene, and they're treated for that.



I wouldn't classify homosexuality as a sickness per se... the actions of a homosexual will determine whether or not they live to be 45 or 95, not the fact that they simply are a homosexual.


----------



## Annie (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> No, I don't notice a problem with the bolded part of your quote. Is there something I'm missing?
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't classify homosexuality as a sickness per se... the actions of a homosexual will determine whether or not they live to be 45 or 95, not the fact that they simply are a homosexual.



Yes, there is something you are missing. However, I doubt any explanation will help you.


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> ... *Irregardless*, ...



Could you please find that in the dictionary for me?


----------



## Reneer (Sep 10, 2006)

*Laughs* Oh my high-school English professor would kill me right now. I'd be smited right on the spot. Thanks for enlightening me about that.


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> No, I don't notice a problem with the bolded part of your quote. Is there something I'm missing?
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't classify homosexuality as a sickness per se... the actions of a homosexual will determine whether or not they live to be 45 or 95, not the fact that they simply are a homosexual.



Let me be more specific, "mental illness". For a man to be sexually attracted to another male is unnatural. 180 degrees out of phase if you will. And for this person to act out these attractions to actually engaging in physical sex with another man is a choice. They have made a conscious decision to carry out this behavior in spite of knowing it's wrong displaying a lack of will power, instead of seeking out help, of which there is more and more every year with continued and increasing records of success.


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> *Laughs* Oh my high-school English professor would kill me right now. I'd be smited right on the spot. Thanks for enlightening me about that.



Lots of people say that. Why I don't know. I've said it a few times myself only to be corrected.


----------



## MissileMan (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


> I don't believe it is genetic. I believe it's a sickness, just like Polio, or cancer, and it should be treated. Even it was proven at some point to be genetic, it should still be treated as an illness. People are predisposed to have cancer by a cancer gene, and they're treated for that.



And if it turns out to be genetic and untreatable?


----------



## MissileMan (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


> Could you please find that in the dictionary for me?



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irregardless&x=45&y=9


----------



## MissileMan (Sep 10, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> Do you notice a problem with the bolded?



I believe it's saying that a higher percentage of homosexual males are the younger/youngest brother of several brothers as opposed to several sisters or as opposed to being the eldest of several siblings.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


> Let me be more specific, "mental illness". For a man to be sexually attracted to another male is unnatural. 180 degrees out of phase if you will. And for this person to act out these attractions to actually engaging in physical sex with another man is a choice. They have made a conscious decision to carry out this behavior in spite of knowing it's wrong displaying a lack of will power, instead of seeking out help, of which there is more and more every year with continued and increasing records of success.



I'll be honest and say that I disagree with that idea that homosexuality is a mental illness (since, alone, it has no direct impact upon a person's social interaction and does not directly cause a person to be self-mutilating.) And I'm also of the opinion that everything that humans do is, by the fact that humans are doing it, natural. Though perhaps I'm looking at 'natural' using a different context.


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irregardless&x=45&y=9



Usage: note _Irregardless_ is considered *nonstandard* because of the two negative elements ir- and -less.


----------



## Annie (Sep 10, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> I believe it's saying that a higher percentage of homosexual males are the younger/youngest brother of several brothers as opposed to several sisters or as opposed to being the eldest of several siblings.





LOL! I KNOW you Know better. Give me a break.


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> And if it turns out to be genetic and untreatable?



A hypothetical question, none the less, has that ever stopped science from trying to find a cure?

No.


----------



## MissileMan (Sep 10, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> LOL! I KNOW you Know better. Give me a break.



I haven't seen the research on this.  I have no idea if it's true or not.


----------



## nt250 (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> And I'm also of the opinion that everything that humans do is, by the fact that humans are doing it, natural. Though perhaps I'm looking at 'natural' using a different context.



Picking your nose and eating it is natural.

But most normal people don't do it in public, or brag about how enjoyable it is.


And, no, I don't pick my nose and eat it.


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> I'll be honest and say that I disagree with that idea that homosexuality is a mental illness (since, alone, it has no direct impact upon a person's social interaction and does not directly cause a person to be self-mutilating.) And I'm also of the opinion that everything that humans do is, by the fact that humans are doing it, natural. Though perhaps I'm looking at 'natural' using a different context.



Well, yes, it was considered a mental illness until quite recently. Then under intense pressure from the homo/lesbo community, the APA changed it's tune. Now it seems that most Psychiatric doctors are willing to stand up to the homo/lesbo's and say once again that it is. 

And to say that acting out homosexuality is "not self mutilating" is not accurate. Homosexuals have a far greater mortality rate than hetero's, due to disease, suicide and drug abuse just to name a few reasons.

I'm not quite sure what "context" you could be using to determine "natural". I always thought there was just one "nature". Is there another world you're thinking of that I'm not aware of?


----------



## Reneer (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


> Well, yes, it was considered a mental illness until quite recently. Then under intense pressure from the homo/lesbo community, the APA changed it's tune. Now it seems that most Psychiatric doctors are willing to stand up to the homo/lesbo's and say once again that it is.
> 
> And to say that acting out homosexuality is "not self mutilating" is not accurate. Homosexuals have a far greater mortality rate than hetero's, due to disease, suicide and drug abuse just to name a few reasons.
> 
> I'm not quite sure what "context" you could be using to determine "natural". I always thought there was just one "nature". Is there another world you're thinking of that I'm not aware of?



I wasn't referring to 'acting out homosexuality' - I was referring to simply being a homosexual versus a heterosexual. You don't lose years off of your lifespan by simply acknowledging that you may be homosexual - it is your actions that will determine that.

And as to my usage of natural, I was referring to 'nature' without taking religious literature's definition of what is natural/unnatural. Sorry for not clarifying that earlier.


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> I wasn't referring to 'acting out homosexuality' - I was referring to simply being a homosexual versus a heterosexual. You don't lose years off of your lifespan by simply acknowledging that you may be homosexual - it is your actions that will determine that.



That's... pretty much what I said.



Reneer said:


> And as to my usage of natural, I was referring to 'nature' without taking religious literature's definition of what is natural/unnatural. Sorry for not clarifying that earlier.


Even though I'm a Christian, I'm not refering to religon either. Nature is nature. A man was designed to have a woman as a sexual mate. There's no mystery about that, or anything that can be miscontrued. That's what "nature" intended. That's all. No religon involved.

Am I missing something about what it is you're really trying to say, or are you being ambagious for a reason?


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 10, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> ... and not behavioral, then how come it is since homosexuals cannot reproduce that the defective gene has not been bred out of humans through natural section?



Is there a point to this question or is it merely to determine to what extent, if any, homosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice?   In either case, in answer to the question, I think that homosexuality is strongly influenced by the environment and choices one makes, as well as conditions from within the womb.  Very early circumstances may have been beyond ones control, but as an adult, we are faced with choices. In addition I think that a homosexual can become a heterosexual and that a heterosexual can become a homosexual with enough mental and physical conditioning.  Yet, I think that the question is irrelevant. 

By the way, a homosexual can reproduce though he probably would not choose to do so.  A lesbian can contribute her egg or, for the sake of having a biological baby, accept sperm.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> By the way, a homosexual can reproduce though he probably would not choose to do so.  A lesbian can contribute her egg or, for the sake of having a biological baby, accept sperm.



Technically you are correct, but you are missing the point. Two homsexuals cannot reproduce with another. A lesbian and a queer can have a kid, but only in a heterosexual manner. Gunny makes a very good point about the nature vs. nurture debate around homosexuality.


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

onthefence said:


> Technically you are correct, but you are missing the point. Two homsexuals cannot reproduce with another. A lesbian and a queer can have a kid, but only in a heterosexual manner. Gunny makes a very good point about the nature vs. nurture debate around homosexuality.



Matts likes to give the most convoluted answers possible. I call it psychobabble.

But, did matts ever tell you that he thinks it's OK for dad's to break in the daughters? Yup. He thinks it's OK for fathers to screw their daughters.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


> Matts likes to give the most convoluted answers possible. I call it psychobabble.
> 
> But, did matts ever tell you that he thinks it's OK for dad's to break in the daughters? Yup. He thinks it's OK for fathers to screw their daughters.



Yes, I tool Pale Rider off Ignore just to see some of his posts. What a sudden change of subject for this thread, man!  It certainly seems as though you have problems.  You are still hooked on the fact that I condone incest between informed consenting adults. Im flattered but please get some help and get over me, pal.  Now, if anyone really is curious and wants to really understand my position on Incest, or anything else for that matter, feel free to ask publicly or privately.

My answers are not convoluted.  They are quite clear to anyone who really cares to carefully read and think about issues. It is so easy and thoughtless to shout out old tiresome hype and politically rhetorical clichés.

By the way, this might sound convoluted to you, Pale Rider, but there is a difference between incest and child molestation. Be careful and dont strain your brain. LOL.


----------



## Nuc (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> You are still hooked on the fact that I condone incest between informed consenting adults.



This is idiotic. Societies all over the world created rules against incest not to stop mom and boy or dad and girl or bro and sis from having fun. They did it because even primitive man was able to observe that the offspring from these unions were defective. At the very least, incest is bad because society has to deal with inbreeds. Duh?:thumbdown:


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 10, 2006)

Nuc said:


> This is idiotic. Societies all over the world created rules against incest not to stop mom and boy or dad and girl or bro and sis from having fun. They did it because even primitive man was able to observe that the offspring from these unions were defective. At the very least, incest is bad because society has to deal with inbreeds. Duh?:thumbdown:



(Sigh)  I think that incest is not wrong.  I think that inbreeding is wrong.  Here is a difference.  Please use a dictionary and dont change my words.  Sheesh.

Besides, it is all relative. (Pardon the pun) We allow smoking but it is harmful.  We allow over-eating though it is harmful.  We allow people do all sorts of things that are not good for them and are a cost to society.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


> That's... pretty much what I said.
> 
> 
> Even though I'm a Christian, I'm not refering to religon either. Nature is nature. A man was designed to have a woman as a sexual mate. There's no mystery about that, or anything that can be miscontrued. That's what "nature" intended. That's all. No religon involved.
> ...



I'm certainly not being ambiguous intentionally - I'm just trying to be tactful since I'm new to the forums and I doubt many would take me seriously if I came across as a blow-hard. I'm also trying to avoid misconstruing others' opinions, which is why I'm seeming to be so wishy-washy at times. I'll get over it eventually, I hope.


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> I'm certainly not being ambiguous intentionally - I'm just trying to be tactful since I'm new to the forums and I doubt many would take me seriously if I came across as a blow-hard. I'm also trying to avoid misconstruing others' opinions, which is why I'm seeming to be so wishy-washy at times. I'll get over it eventually, I hope.



Well, I said 'ambagious', not ambiguous, even though they have similiar meanings. You still may want to say you were ambiguous which is fine. You were, and seeing your reasons, I can respect that.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


> Nature is nature. A man was designed to have a woman as a sexual mate. There's no mystery about that, or anything that can be miscontrued. That's what "nature" intended.



The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar:

"The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Nature, appeal to

This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad. For example, "Sodomy is unnatural; anal sex is not the evolutionary function of a penis or an anus. Therefore sodomy is wrong." But aside from the difficulty of defining what "natural" even means, there is no particular reason to suppose that unnatural and wrong are the same thing. After all, wearing clothes, tilling the soil, and using fire might be considered unnatural since no other animals do so, but humans do these things all the time and to great benefit. 

The appeal to nature appears occasionally in debate, often in the form of naive environmentalist arguments for preserving pristine wilderness or resources. The argument is very weak and should always be shot down. It can, however, be made stronger by showing why at least in specific cases, there may be a (possibly unspecifiable) benefit to preserving nature as it is. A typical ecological argument along these lines is that human beings are part of a complex biological system that is highly sensitive to shocks, and therefore it is dangerous for humans to engage in activities that might damage the system in ways we cannot predict. Note, however, that this approach no longer appeals to nature itself, but to the value of human survival. 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#natural

However, let us set aside such doubts about the category of 'the natural' for the moment and just ask, even if we can agree that some things are natural and some are not, what follows from this? The answer is: nothing. There is no factual reason to suppose that what is natural is good (or at least better) and what is unnatural is bad (or at least worse).

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html

Nature merely shows us what is.  It does not show us what should be.  Cancer is a natural part of aging.  Chemotherapy and radiation therapy is an unnatural but relatively successful treatment. It is not natural for an encyclopedia to be used as a booster seat at a dinner table.  It was never intended to be a booster seat, but it helps. 

By the way, no one is calling for replacing heterosexuality with homosexuality.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> (Sigh)  I think that incest is not wrong.



Please explain this to me. I am sincerely interested and cannot even begin to fathom how you are going to defend this.


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy...



So now you call nature a fallacy. Holy shit matts, I think I'll put YOU on ignore. You're the biggest, daughter fucking, wierdo, moron this board has.

You post the most incoherent bullshit there is on this board. You must live in some kind of personal moral vacuum, because you really should be too ashamed to show your face in society.


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

onthefence said:


> Please explain this to me. I am sincerely interested and cannot even begin to fathom how you are going to defend this.



Oh he will! It'll go something like this... :blah2: 

If you can understand any of it, then you're a better man than I am.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


> So now you call nature a fallacy. Holy shit matts, I think I'll put YOU on ignore. You're the biggest, daughter fucking, wierdo, moron this board has.
> 
> You post the most incoherent bullshit there is on this board. You must live in some kind of personal moral vacuum, because you really should be too ashamed to show your face in society.



Oh good God!  Im sorry but, learn to read and reason, will you!?! Damn. Nature is not a fallacy.  The appeal to nature is a fallacy. It is as if Im trying to communicate with a child.


----------



## nt250 (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> (Sigh)  I think that incest is not wrong.  I think that inbreeding is wrong.  Here is a difference.  Please use a dictionary and dont change my words.  Sheesh.
> 
> Besides, it is all relative. (Pardon the pun) We allow smoking but it is harmful.  We allow over-eating though it is harmful.  We allow people do all sorts of things that are not good for them and are a cost to society.



I'd like to know, too.

In 200 words or less.

By the way, I don't know what planet you live on, but on my planet they don't allow smoking.


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Oh good God!  Im sorry but, learn to read and reason, will you!?! Damn. Nature is not a fallacy.  The appeal to nature is a fallacy. It is as if Im trying to communicate with a child.



The "appeal" to nature is a fallacy? Why? Why do you have to ALWAYS apply some sort of distorted, butchered horse crap to something.

Nature is nature. Pure and simple. You're psychobabble about fallacies and appeals is fucked up... period.

Go ask your neighbor if you can watch him fuck his daughter while you beat off your buddy.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 10, 2006)

onthefence said:


> Please explain this to me. I am sincerely interested and cannot even begin to fathom how you are going to defend this.



There are limits to what society will tolerate even between consenting adults. We set minimum age limits in different states that define people as adults with respect to certain activities.  In Texas, should a 10 year old be allowed to drive?  How about an 11-year-old 15-year-old  15 and a half? We allow people to smoke cigarettes but not to smoke marijuana.  Some people think that we should allow people to smoke marijuana even though smoking is unhealthy. Some people would allow for smoking marijuana but not for taking cocaine. It is relative  cost benefit analysis  how much freedom are we going to allow with respect to how much risk that people will make the wrong choices.    Im somewhat of a libertarian in that regard but I have limits too.  When it comes to sex, I think that incest should be allowed.  As long as there in no inbreeding, informed consenting adults should be allowed to engage in sex.  That is all that there is to it.  Do you think that incest should not be allowed?  Why?


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

Nuc said:


> Well I guess I must be one of the "pro-homo faction" because I lack that charming virulent hatred and abhorrence of gays due to knowing gays and having gay friends.
> 
> I think there is a genetic factor. But it can be triggered by other circumstances. Take Downs Syndrome for example, it is much more prevalent in children of older women. Maybe there is something like that which triggers homosexuality.
> 
> I don't think any of us should be too hard and fast in our opinions about this unless we are medical or psychological professionals.



Hate to not include you in the club, but you were nto anyone I was thinking of.  

While you are trying your level-best to exude tolerance and moderation, perhaps you would do better if you did not label anyone who calls homosexuals aberrants as haters.  I have at no point stated that I hate homosexuals, nor am I motivated by it.

I'm just not going to call homosexuals normal when clearly, despite some really fanciful arguments, they are not.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 10, 2006)

nt250 said:


> I'd like to know, too.
> 
> In 200 words or less.
> 
> By the way, I don't know what planet you live on, but on my planet they don't allow smoking.



Do you live on earth?  If so, you are saying that people are not allowed to smoke anywhere on earth.  I live on earth.  Based on my understanding, people are still allowed to smoke in a few places.  They can smoke in homes.  They can even smoke in cars.  They can even smoke on the sidewalk.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

nt250 said:


> Sorry.  I was trying to be funny.
> 
> You gotta admit that sentence is a little convoluted.  But, hey, we all have our moments.



Man .... and I worked so hard on it .....


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

MissileMan said:


> And if it turns out to be genetic and untreatable?



If it turns out to be genetic and untreatable then there is no more debate about whether or not is is genetic, right?

I will STILL contend, genetic or not, it is abnormal behavior.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


> The "appeal" to nature is a fallacy? Why? Why do you have to ALWAYS apply some sort of distorted, butchered horse crap to something.
> 
> Nature is nature. Pure and simple. You're psychobabble about fallacies and appeals is fucked up... period.



I think what matts is saying is that just because something is natural doesn't necessarily make it good - take mercury for example. It's certainly natural, but I wouldn't want to eat it, even though it would be a 'natural ingrediant' in a pill.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Is there a point to this question or is it merely to determine to what extent, if any, homosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice?   In either case, in answer to the question, I think that homosexuality is strongly influenced by the environment and choices one makes, as well as conditions from within the womb.  Very early circumstances may have been beyond ones control, but as an adult, we are faced with choices. In addition I think that a homosexual can become a heterosexual and that a heterosexual can become a homosexual with enough mental and physical conditioning.  Yet, I think that the question is irrelevant.
> 
> By the way, a homosexual can reproduce though he probably would not choose to do so.  A lesbian can contribute her egg or, for the sake of having a biological baby, accept sperm.



I see.  SO your entire argument is backed up by "I think."  Most members of this board are well aware of what you "think."

Within the context of true homosexuality, they cannot reproduce.  I did not say they were incapable.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


> The "appeal" to nature is a fallacy? Why? Why do you have to ALWAYS apply some sort of distorted, butchered horse crap to something.
> 
> Nature is nature. Pure and simple. You're psychobabble about fallacies and appeals is fucked up... period.



I already explained it to you.   I even provided you with several links.  I will explain it again in as simple a way as I can.  Nature does not tell you what should or should not exist.  Nature merely shows you what is. Hurricanes are natural.  Cancer is natural.  Are these good things?  Pesticides, Chemotherapy, and Radiation therapy are artificial.  Are these bad things? 

It cant get much simpler than that.  Look through practically any book of logic.  You will find that to appeal to nature is to commit a fallacy. 



> Go ask your neighbor if you can watch him fuck his daughter while you beat off your buddy.



No.  First of all, incest is illegal.  Secondly, I doubt that my neighbor wants to fuck his daughter.  Thirdly, Im not interested in watching incest.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> (Sigh)  I think that incest is not wrong.  I think that inbreeding is wrong.  Here is a difference.  Please use a dictionary and dont change my words.  Sheesh.
> 
> Besides, it is all relative. (Pardon the pun) We allow smoking but it is harmful.  We allow over-eating though it is harmful.  We allow people do all sorts of things that are not good for them and are a cost to society.



You get dumber and more revolting as a human being by the second.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar:
> 
> "The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."
> 
> ...




None of your gibberish explains how a non-reporduced gene could survive natural selection.  The only fallacy here is you, as usual.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

nt250 said:


> I'd like to know, too.
> 
> *In 200 words or less.*
> 
> By the way, I don't know what planet you live on, but on my planet they don't allow smoking.



Good luck.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 10, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> I see.  SO your entire argument is backed up by "I think."  Most members of this board are well aware of what you "think."
> 
> Within the context of true homosexuality, they cannot reproduce.  I did not say they were incapable.



Yes.  It typically the same for other people too.  They give their opinions.  They try to back them up with phony reasoning that I easily knock down.  Look, when all is said and done, practically all ethics comes down to personal preference. 

When one  cannot do something, it means that one is incapable of doing something.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> There are limits to what society will tolerate even between consenting adults. We set minimum age limits in different states that define people as adults with respect to certain activities.  In Texas, should a 10 year old be allowed to drive?  How about an 11-year-old 15-year-old  15 and a half? We allow people to smoke cigarettes but not to smoke marijuana.  Some people think that we should allow people to smoke marijuana even though smoking is unhealthy. Some people would allow for smoking marijuana but not for taking cocaine. It is relative  cost benefit analysis  how much freedom are we going to allow with respect to how much risk that people will make the wrong choices.    Im somewhat of a libertarian in that regard but I have limits too.  When it comes to sex, I think that incest should be allowed.  As long as there in no inbreeding, informed consenting adults should be allowed to engage in sex.  That is all that there is to it.  Do you think that incest should not be allowed?  Why?



Irrelevant, deflective bullshit.


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> I think what matts is saying is that just because something is natural doesn't necessarily make it good - take mercury for example. It's certainly natural, but I wouldn't want to eat it, even though it would be a 'natural ingrediant' in a pill.



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

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


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> I think what matts is saying is that just because something is natural doesn't necessarily make it good - take mercury for example. It's certainly natural, but I wouldn't want to eat it, even though it would be a 'natural ingrediant' in a pill.



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


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 10, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> None of your gibberish explains how a non-reporduced gene could survive natural selection.  The only fallacy here is you, as usual.



Try to do a little bit of reading.  As I said before, I find the debate about nature vs. nurture (genetic condition vs. choice) to be irrelevant.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Yes.  It typically the same for other people too.  They give their opinions.  They try to back them up with phony reasoning that I easily knock down.  Look, when all is said and done, practically all ethics comes down to personal preference.
> 
> When one  cannot do something, it means that one is incapable of doing something.



You kill me.  You don't easily knock down jack shit.  That's just your own delusional, unfounded belief.  

My orignal question stands, and with all the smoke you're trying to blow up our asses, you haven't knocked down so much as one word.


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> I already explained it to you.   I even provided you with several links.  I will explain it again in as simple a way as I can.  Nature does not tell you what should or should not exist.  Nature merely shows you what is. Hurricanes are natural.  Cancer is natural.  Are these good things?  Pesticides, Chemotherapy, and Radiation therapy are artificial.  Are these bad things?
> 
> It cant get much simpler than that.  Look through practically any book of logic.  You will find that to appeal to nature is to commit a fallacy.
> 
> ...



matts, not only do you turn my stomach, but you talk the longest line of shit I've ever heard.

You're just too disgusting to keep responding too. You're a filthy waste of human flesh.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Try to do a little bit of reading.  As I said before, I find the debate about nature vs. nurture (genetic condition vs. choice) to be irrelevant.



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

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

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

Wrong answer.  You're full of shit as much as the smoke screen you keep trying to blow up everyone's asses.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


> I'm glad you can understand him... but that leaves me wondering about YOU now...
> 
> Like you've pointed out already, you're new here. You might want to look up and read some of what this, daughter fucking, boyfriend whack off, lunatic is all about before you align yourself with him.



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



GunnyL said:


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



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


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


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


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





Reneer said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> I merely believe that I understand where he's coming from with the 'appeal to nature' fallacy. That doesn't mean I condone (or condemn) anything else he may say. And for the record, I'm against incest.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Change 'mercury' to 'poisonous mushroom.' That's a foodstuff. :happy2:



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

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

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


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 10, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> That's all well and good.  The fact that nature may create things that are not necessarily good for mankind really has nothing to do with abnormal genetics.
> 
> Nature doesn't know about "love."  It creates a male and female for the perpetuation of the species.  Abnormal genetics that have either one not performing its biological function as nature designed where reproduction is concerned precludes those abnormal genetics from being passed down the line.
> 
> By that logical reasoning, if there was such a thing as a "homosexual gene," it would have become extinct long ago via natural selection.



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


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 10, 2006)

GunnyL said:


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



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



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



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

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

Do you see that?  Read it very carefully.  Dont you see that I answered the question already?   



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



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

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


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


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



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


----------



## Gunny (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


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



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


----------



## Reneer (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


> You can twist, distort, miscontrue, misrepresent, and create illusions 'till the cows come home, but you will NEVER make nature, and what nature it's intended purpse is, other than what it is.
> 
> Mushrooms, mercury or a person with constipation examples are what's a fallacy.
> 
> I've found talking straight to the point and not horse crap is the best way to understand something. I certainly wouldn't have wanted one of my college professor's to start talking about mushrooms to me when he was trying to explain electricity.



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



GunnyL said:


> That's all well and good.  The fact that nature may create things that are not necessarily good for mankind really has nothing to do with abnormal genetics.
> 
> Nature doesn't know about "love."  It creates a male and female for the perpetuation of the species.  Abnormal genetics that have either one not performing its biological function as nature designed where reproduction is concerned precludes those abnormal genetics from being passed down the line.
> 
> By that logical reasoning, if there was such a thing as a "homosexual gene," it would have become extinct long ago via natural selection.



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


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


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



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


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


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



NO

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

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


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## Reneer (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


> Well for Christ sake Reneer, how do you go from homosexual being unnatural to things in nature that might be bad for you? Where the heck is the relevance in the arguement?
> 
> If you're trying to say something about homosexuality and what you believe about that, then stick to that! Why delve off on a poisonous mushroom tangent when that's not what we're talking about?!



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


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> Sorry, I didn't realize that your question was rhetorical in nature. Irregardless, I don't believe that is what the articles are getting at - it isn't, if I am reading the articles correctly, strictly genetic in nature. If the female parent is more fertile when producing offspring, it is more likely that said offspring will be homosexual, so it has something to do with the hormones that are produced by the mother while the child is in gestation.
> 
> According to that theory, if you controlled the conditions while the child was in gestation, you could 'control' whether or not they were 'predisposed' towards homosexuality / bi-sexuality.



Irregardless is redundant.

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


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


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


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



Reneer said:


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



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


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 10, 2006)

Nuc said:


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


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



Nuc said:


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


 



Nuc said:


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



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


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


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



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


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 10, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> Do you notice a problem with the bolded?



if someone has already responded to this, my apologies.

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

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


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 10, 2006)

nt250 said:


> Anybody with working eyeballs can tell that some people are homosexual by genetic traits.  k.d. lange.  Lance Bass.
> 
> I've known two gay men in real life and both of them were raging queens.  They couldn't have hid their homosexuality if they tried to.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## CharlestonChad (Sep 10, 2006)

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



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




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



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


----------



## Reneer (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


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



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

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



LuvRPgrl said:


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



Cool. Someone who read it as I did.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> (Sigh)  I think that incest is not wrong.  I think that inbreeding is wrong.  Here is a difference.  Please use a dictionary and dont change my words.  Sheesh.
> 
> Besides, it is all relative. (Pardon the pun) We allow smoking but it is harmful.  We allow over-eating though it is harmful.  We allow people do all sorts of things that are not good for them and are a cost to society.



care to explain the difference and how it is pertinent to this topic?

Uh, smoking etc, hurts oneself, incest damages many others, not limited to the possible offspring.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 10, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> *BLAH, BLAH, BLAH*,......When it comes to sex, I think that incest should be allowed.  As long as there in no inbreeding, informed consenting adults should be allowed to engage in sex.  That is all that there is to it.  Do you think that incest should not be allowed?  Why?


Uh, you care to explain how you could possibly enforce no inbreeding if you allow incest to occur. Thats like saying its ok to smoke pot, just not ok to get loaded.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 10, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


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



Not neccessarily. Look at other genetic defects, (YES! Im calling homosexuality a defect!)

take cerebal palsy for example. I think they are incapable or very unlikely to have offspring, yet the recessive gene for it is carried  on anyways. Also, dont forget that homosexuals sometimes do force themselves to have sex with a woman just for the sake of having offspring. 

If *IF* the condition is due to genetics, then if the person is carrying the gene and forces themselves to have sex with a woman for offspring, then the response that if a person can force themselves to have sex with the opposite sex, then they arent a "true homosexual", would become irrelevant, because we would be defining a homosexual as one who carries the gene and displays it for the most part.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 10, 2006)

Reneer said:


> Alright. Here's what I think about homosexuality, definitively:
> 1. It is natural.
> 2. It is not a mental illness..


but it is a defect.


Reneer said:


> 3. Gays, in marriage / civil union / whatever, should be able to have the same rights as a married heterosexual couple (taxes, hospital visits, etc,) since they are (ideally) going to have the same commitment to one another that a married heterosexual couple does..



I couldnt disagree more. The religous aspect of marriage is to keep a commitment. But the legal aspect is to promote families, both health wise (monogamous partners have healthier lives) and in numbers. Financially, it is a drain to have kids, so the govt allows taxes to be construed to help the family with kids to make up for it. Hence, some who would othewise not have kids, may make the decision to go ahead.

Second, they are not rights, marriage is a privledge. Please show me once in the Constitution where marriage is mentioned.

Lastly, for a homosexual male couple to remain monogamous for a lifetime is extremely rare. Men are naturally promiscuous. Women arent. With two men, you dont have one partner requiring fidelity as often.

As for hospital visits, I think that can be dealth with using current laws.








Reneer said:


> Cool. Someone who read it as I did.


 Yes, but I can easilly see how someone could read it as contradictory. At first glance, it appears to be so.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 10, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


> I couldnt disagree more. The religous aspect of marriage is to keep a commitment. But the legal aspect is to promote families, both health wise (monogamous partners have healthier lives) and in numbers. Financially, it is a drain to have kids, so the govt allows taxes to be construed to help the family with kids to make up for it. Hence, some who would othewise not have kids, may make the decision to go ahead.
> 
> Second, they are not rights, marriage is a privledge. Please show me once in the Constitution where marriage is mentioned.
> 
> ...



You're correct, it is not 'rights' that I should be referring to, but rather privileges. I'll rephrase that as 'privileges granted to heterosexual couples upon marriage.'

And in response to your generalization of secular marriage, you are correct - but I don't see anyone stripping infertile couples of their marriage licenses because they can't have children. I also don't see how some of the benefits granted to heterosexual couples have anything to do with creating a family, like Burial Determination or Bereavement Leave or even Sick Leave to Care for Partner. Mind explaining how a homosexual couple could possibly get those benefits if their union isn't recognized by the state?

And honestly? You have not a leg to stand on when heterosexual couples get divorced roughly 50% of the time, and people re-marry multiple times. So what does it matter if homosexuals may not necessarily be married for life under a civil union / marriage?


----------



## 007 (Sep 11, 2006)

Reneer said:


> Alright. Here's what I think about homosexuality, definitively:
> 1. It is natural.
> 2. It is not a mental illness.



1). There is NOTHING "natural" about homosexuality. It's a mental choice by a person to act upon "unnatural" urges.
2). It is a mental illness. It was deamed an illness for ions, only to be reclassified under intense homo/lesbo pressure. But recently the President of the APA has said he once again considers it a mental illness. It appears he's found his back bone and is taking a stand against the homo/lesbo pressure tactics. I started a thread with an article on it in the health section, check it out.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=474016&postcount=1



Reneer said:


> 3. Gays, in marriage / civil union / whatever, should be able to have the same rights as a married heterosexual couple (taxes, hospital visits, etc,) since they are (ideally) going to have the same commitment to one another that a married heterosexual couple does.


Well, you've already been told that marriage isn't a right, with that said, I'll add marriage is a Holy Union between a man and a woman in the eyes of God. God makes it very clear what he thinks about queers and lesbo's. He say's it's an abomination, and that their blood will surely pay. So marriage between two men, no matter how bad they'd like to call it one, will NEVER be a marriage as a man and woman in the eyes of God. So for queers and lesbo's to want to marry, all they are doing is trying to defile the holy sanctity of marriage. They should take a civil union with all the legal benefits of a marriad couple and shut up. Leave marriage for what it was truely intended for, a man and a woman.



Reneer said:


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



Gee... you really went out on a limb here didn't you...


----------



## Nuc (Sep 11, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Maybe you dont have that hatred and abhorrence, but you do have that liberal snobbishness and prejudicial treatment of conservatives who think that homosexuality is abnormal and a negative in ones life, by automatically assuming that if one isnt PRO HOMO then that means you are automatically hating and abhoring homosexuals, which simply isnt true.
> And yet you hold hard and fast, onto your opinion of conservatives and their views on the issue.



You guys are right there are a lot of people here who don't approve of homosexuality yet don't hate gays either. I will not tar you with the same brush as the raging obsessive homophobes on the board. Sorry, my bad!

In my own defense, the virulence of some of the people on the board is a real turn-off and I probably wouldn't like to hear it on any subject other than perhaps Hitler or Bin Laden for example. I think hating people who may be normal, or if not normal, redeemable, is distasteful.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 11, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


> 1). There is NOTHING "natural" about homosexuality. It's a mental choice by a person to act upon "unnatural" urges.
> 2). It is a mental illness. It was deamed an illness for ions, only to be reclassified under intense homo/lesbo pressure. But recently the President of the APA has said he once again considers it a mental illness. It appears he's found his back bone and is taking a stand against the homo/lesbo pressure tactics. I started a thread with an article on it in the health section, check it out.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=474016&postcount=1
> ...



1) That is where we differ in opinion as to what is 'natural.'
2) Even if the APA decides that homosexuality is again to be classified as a mental illness, I'd need to see some hard evidence before I would believe it to be a mental illness.

And there's a reason I said 'marriage / civil union / whatever' - in my eyes it doesn't need to be marriage, so long as the couple at least gets the same state-sanctioned benefits that are normally given to a heterosexual couple. If they want to have their civil-union recognized by a religion, I'm sure they can find one that will recognize it.

And in regards to incest... well, I think it's wrong, too. :


----------



## 007 (Sep 11, 2006)

Nuc said:


> You guys are right there are a lot of people here who don't approve of homosexuality yet don't hate gays either. I will not tar you with the same brush as the raging obsessive homophobes on the board. Sorry, my bad!
> 
> In my own defense, the virulence of some of the people on the board is a real turn-off and I probably wouldn't like to hear it on any subject other than perhaps Hitler or Bin Laden for example. I think hating people who may be normal, or if not normal, redeemable, is distasteful.



If by chance you refer to me, I'd challange you to find anywhere where I said "I hate queers".

I've said I don't respect them, what they do turns my stomach, the Bible says what they do is an abomination, they're sick in the head, on and on. But nowhere have I ever said "I hate them". I've stated on more than one occassion that it is not the person I dislike, it's the choice they've made to carry out their unnatural impulses. I see that as weak.

I've known a few queers in my life. I've never treated any of them any different than I've treated anybody else. But here in this forum, I can make my disgust known. I've never known the PRO-homo crowd to hold their feelings in, so why should I?


----------



## 007 (Sep 11, 2006)

Reneer said:


> 1) That is where we differ in opinion as to what is 'natural.'


OK.


Reneer said:


> 2) Even if the APA decides that homosexuality is again to be classified as a mental illness, I'd need to see some hard evidence before I would believe it to be a mental illness.


So for it to be classified for ions as a mental illness, and once again to correct a wrong it is reclassified that again, by knowledgable doctors and scientists that have studied the illness for all that while, you're still smarter than they are? You feel they're somehow mistaken? Maybe you should call the APA and enlighten them to the unkown information you have that say's they're wrong. I'm sure they'd be very grateful for this.



Reneer said:


> And there's a reason I said 'marriage / civil union / whatever' - in my eyes it doesn't need to be marriage, so long as the couple at least gets the same state-sanctioned benefits that are normally given to a heterosexual couple. If they want to have their civil-union recognized by a religion, I'm sure they can find one that will recognize it.


OK.


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Sep 11, 2006)

I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic. I think the propensity for a man to be effiminate or for a woman to be masculine may be though--it's obviously a glandular/hormonal difference. Having said that, I've known of several effiminate men who are married and have kids--I've even heard of married fathers "realizing" they are gay and suddenly pursuing that lifestyle--which I think is deplorable when a woman and kids are involved. I've also heard of overly masculine men committing homosexual acts as part of some sociopathic dominance issues they have. I think it all comes down to preference in the end.

However, to answer the question posed by the thread topic--it's obvious to me how hormonal deficiencies would be passed down through generations.  Then homosexuality, which I believe is either a choice, whether unconscious or conscious or subconscious has been around since the beginning of human history and I don't see it going anywhere soon. If homosexuality is a choice, then it's obvious why it continues to manifest itself. I very much doubt that it is genetic--and if it is, I think it has to do more with hormones and the endocrine system that a "homosexual gene."


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 11, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Uh, you care to explain how you could possibly enforce no inbreeding if you allow incest to occur. Thats like saying its ok to smoke pot, just not ok to get loaded.



Think for a moment.  We allow people to drink but we prohibit people from driving drunk.  We allow strangers to have sex but we dont allow people to commit date rape.  We allow people to do many things that, if not done carefully, could progress to prohibited things.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 11, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


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



It is all so simple.  Take a beginners course in logic. In all practicality, you tried to make the argument that heterosexuality is good, should be tolerated, etc. because it is natural (and that homosexuality is wrong because it is not natural).  You are committing the fallacy of appealing to nature.  Nature is not good or bad.  It is not right or wrong. What is natural is merely what is natural.  There are bad things in nature.  There are good things that are not natural.  Read about the fallacy of appealing to nature and then try another argument opposing homosexuality.


----------



## archangel (Sep 11, 2006)

The only predisposition that can be attributed to homosexuals being genetic is found in 'Hermaphrodites' which is very rare less than 1% of the population...
This condition can be treated medically as well as psychologically...which supports pales anology...

What we are talking about as referring to homosexual behavior is found in what is referred to as "Societal Sex"- determined after birth ie: how a person is raised (male or female or (intersex-hermaphrodites) this supports my analogy that homosexual behavior is nothing more than sexual immaturity...

Don't kill the messenger go to   www.ibis-birthdefects.org/start/hermaphr.htm


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 11, 2006)

archangel said:


> The only predisposition that can be attributed to homosexuals being genetic is found in 'Hermaphrodites' which is very rare less than 1% of the population...
> This condition can be treated medically as well as psychologically...which supports pales anology...
> 
> What we are talking about as referring to homosexual behavior is found in what is referred to as "Societal Sex"- determined after birth ie: how a person is raised (male or female or (intersex-hermaphrodites) this supports my analogy that homosexual behavior is nothing more than sexual immaturity...
> ...



I followed your line of reasoning until you stated that, _ this supports my analogy that homosexual behavior is nothing more than sexual immaturity_

I dont see the connection.  Would you connect the dots for me?


----------



## archangel (Sep 11, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> I followed your line of reasoning until you stated that, _ this supports my analogy that homosexual behavior is nothing more than sexual immaturity_
> 
> I dont see the connection.  Would you connect the dots for me?




why I am answering this question...you are weird dude....ya lost me when you admitted you believed 'incest' was okay...but I will compose my animosity for you and say simply...mutual masturbation as found in narcisstic homosexual behavior is nothing more than sexual immaturity... a learned process...now go away perv!


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 11, 2006)

archangel said:


> why I am answering this question...you are weird dude....ya lost me when you admitted you believed 'incest' was okay...but I will compose my animosity for you and say simply...mutual masturbation as found in narcisstic homosexual behavior is nothing more than sexual immaturity... a learned process...now go away perv!



Uh.  Mutual masturbation is found on narcissistic heterosexual behavior. Does that denote it as sexual immaturity? By the way, I wont stoop to name-calling.


----------



## archangel (Sep 11, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Uh.  Mutual masturbation is found on narcissistic heterosexual behavior. Does that denote it as sexual immaturity? By the way, I wont stoop to name-calling.





I just call em' like I see em'...look up the term pervert...not name calling just a fact Jack...you are perverted...seek help!:blah2:


side note...mutual masturbation between homosexuals is not 'foreplay' as defined in hetrosexual activity...and as I said previously you are way out there...seek help!


----------



## nt250 (Sep 11, 2006)

CharlestonChad said:


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



To your first question:  beats me.

To your second statement:  You're right.  I do not have any gay friends.  I don't associate with people who have disgusting personal habits.


----------



## nt250 (Sep 11, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


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




You have never met a true homosexual.

Or you're blind.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 11, 2006)

archangel said:


> I just call em' like I see em'...look up the term pervert...not name calling just a fact Jack...you are perverted...seek help!:blah2:
> 
> 
> side note...mutual masturbation between homosexuals is not 'foreplay' as defined in hetrosexual activity...and as I said previously you are way out there...seek help!



Then get glasses you ignorant fool.  Uh - not name calling - just a fact Jack - LOL.  There is oral sex  gay or straight.  There is anal sex  gay or straight.  There is a wide variety of sexual activity.  Homosexual behavior is no more or less sexually mature behavior than is heterosexual behavior. Again, I challenge you to prove otherwise.


----------



## nt250 (Sep 11, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Then get glasses you ignorant fool.  Uh - not name calling - just a fact Jack - LOL.  There is oral sex  gay or straight.  There is anal sex  gay or straight.  There is a wide variety of sexual activity.  Homosexual behavior is no more or less sexually mature behavior than is heterosexual behavior. Again, I challenge you to prove otherwise.




The key word here is "behavior".

The simple fact is that gays want their behavior to be celebrated.  Not just tolerated.  Not just allowed.  

Gays are the only group in the history of the world who have managed to get laws passed that legislate the reaction to their behavior.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 11, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> It is all so simple.  Take a beginners course in logic. In all practicality, you tried to make the argument that heterosexuality is good, should be tolerated, etc. because it is natural (and that homosexuality is wrong because it is not natural).  You are committing the fallacy of appealing to nature.  Nature is not good or bad.  It is not right or wrong. What is natural is merely what is natural.  There are bad things in nature.  There are good things that are not natural.  Read about the fallacy of appealing to nature and then try another argument opposing homosexuality.



Utter nonsense and doubletalk, as usual.  There is a natural order, and homosexuality falls outside of it.  Since YOU have chosen to remove good/bad and right/wrong from the equation, it all comes down to biological function.  

Males and females of the species reproduce.  THAT is natural.  Homosexuals, who cannot reproduce therefore cannot perpetuate the species are biologically of no use to nature.

I for one and getting damned sick and tired of your incessantly trying to tell everyone the sky ain't blue with your bullshit, relativism.  And I didn't miss your tapdance routine concerning morals either.  Well, bullshit.  Our morals aren't just different.  Your possess the morals of a snake -- none.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 11, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Then get glasses you ignorant fool.  Uh - not name calling - just a fact Jack - LOL.  There is oral sex  gay or straight.  There is anal sex  gay or straight.  There is a wide variety of sexual activity.  Homosexual behavior is no more or less sexually mature behavior than is heterosexual behavior. Again, I challenge you to prove otherwise.



You are one, sick bastard.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 11, 2006)

nt250 said:


> The key word here is "behavior".
> 
> The simple fact is that gays want their behavior to be celebrated.  Not just tolerated.  Not just allowed.



From where did you get this information?  Do you read minds?  Im sorry to have to inform the gay people but I dont celebrate their behavior.  



> Gays are the only group in the history of the world who have managed to get laws passed that legislate the reaction to their behavior.



Be specific.  What reaction has been legislated with respect to homosexual behavior?  Are you still talking about celebration?


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 11, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Utter nonsense and doubletalk, as usual.  There is a natural order, and homosexuality falls outside of it.  Since YOU have chosen to remove good/bad and right/wrong from the equation, it all comes down to biological function.



(Yawn)  Ive already covered the fallacy of appealing to nature. 

Males and females of the species reproduce.  THAT is natural.  Homosexuals, who cannot reproduce therefore cannot perpetuate the species are biologically of no use to nature.

So what. Are some heterosexuals who cant reproduce, or choose to not reproduce, of no use to nature?  Perhaps, but what is the point?



> I for one and getting damned sick and tired of your incessantly trying to tell everyone the sky ain't blue with your bullshit, relativism.



Awww. Poor child.  Are you throwing a temper tantrum?  Remember that there is an ignore button. Actually, the sky is black at this time of day. 



> And I didn't miss your tap dance routine concerning morals either.  Well, bullshit.  Our morals aren't just different.  Your possess the morals of a snake -- none.



Whatever


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 11, 2006)

Reneer said:


> You're correct, it is not 'rights' that I should be referring to, but rather privileges. I'll rephrase that as 'privileges granted to heterosexual couples upon marriage.'
> 
> And in response to your generalization of secular marriage, you are correct - but I don't see anyone stripping infertile couples of their marriage licenses because they can't have children.?


WHile the law trys to be consistent in philosophy, it also recognizes that practicality is a necessity also. It would be impossible to determine which heterosexual couples can or cant have children, whereas it is easy to determine that NO HOMO couples can.



Reneer said:


> I also don't see how some of the benefits granted to heterosexual couples have anything to do with creating a family, like Burial Determination or Bereavement Leave or even Sick Leave to Care for Partner. Mind explaining how a homosexual couple could possibly get those benefits if their union isn't recognized by the state??



I dont have a problem with homo couples having some of those "benefits".



Reneer said:


> And honestly? You have not a leg to stand on when heterosexual couples get divorced roughly 50% of the time, and people re-marry multiple times. So what does it matter if homosexuals may not necessarily be married for life under a civil union / marriage?



Ahhh, and you were doing so well. This is a weak arguement at best.
First, the 50% figure isnt accurate. While 50% of marriages might end in divorce, not nearly 50% of couples do.

Second, no matter what the heterosexual divorce rate is, the homosexual rate will always be significantly higher. 

Third, the reason for the high divorce rate is not because of the conservatives, but due to the liberals who fought for no fault divorce, making marriage and divorce an easy thing to get into and out of, much of the time. So, now the liberals are trying to get the percentage of couples who divorce even higher?

And what it does matter if homosexuals are furtherly filling up the family law courtrooms is this. As it stands, the courtrooms are overburdened and understaffed. This sometimes leads to a lack of time to determine the fitness of a parent. Occasionally this leads to bad decisions, child abuse, molestation and even murders. Now, if we further clog the courtroom with homosexuals arguing over who gets the pink poodle and phallic shaped couch, and EVEN ONE CHILD is harmed because of it, then I tell those homosexual to GO POUND FUCKING SAND.


----------



## 007 (Sep 11, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Then get glasses you ignorant fool.  Uh - not name calling - just a fact Jack - LOL.  There is oral sex  gay or straight.  There is anal sex  gay or straight.  There is a wide variety of sexual activity.  Homosexual behavior is no more or less sexually mature behavior than is heterosexual behavior. Again, I challenge you to prove otherwise.



I'm curious, how did you get so fucking sick? Are your parents as fucking sick as you are, or do they even claim you as their own?

What made you into this super pervert, dense, oblivious, fuck?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 11, 2006)

Nuc said:


> You guys are right there are a lot of people here who don't approve of homosexuality yet don't hate gays either. I will not tar you with the same brush as the raging obsessive homophobes on the board. Sorry, my bad!.



well good for you.




Nuc said:


> In my own defense, the virulence of some of the people on the board is a real turn-off and I probably wouldn't like to hear it on any subject other than perhaps Hitler or Bin Laden for example. I think hating people who may be normal, or if not normal, redeemable, is distasteful.



Yea, there are some who are over the top a lot. I wince a bit at those posts I see. I recall one guy who wasnt virulently anti religous, cant remember his name now, he even told this nice sweet older lady to go fuck her uncle.
   Hey, I remember you and I agreeing on a topic, wayyyyy back in the day, hahahha


----------



## Gunny (Sep 11, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> (Yawn)  Ive already covered the fallacy of appealing to nature.
> 
> And (yawn) I shot your bullshit argument down.
> 
> ...



I expected no better.  You _should_ be ashamed of who and what you are -- or at least profess to be on this board.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 11, 2006)

Hagbard Celine said:


> I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic. I think the propensity for a man to be effiminate or for a woman to be masculine may be though--it's obviously a glandular/hormonal difference. Having said that, I've known of several effiminate men who are married and have kids--I've even heard of married fathers "realizing" they are gay and suddenly pursuing that lifestyle--which I think is deplorable when a woman and kids are involved. I've also heard of overly masculine men committing homosexual acts as part of some sociopathic dominance issues they have. I think it all comes down to preference in the end.."



Who's "end"??



Hagbard Celine said:


> However, to answer the question posed by the thread topic--it's obvious to me how hormonal deficiencies would be passed down through generations.  Then homosexuality, which I believe is either a choice, whether unconscious or conscious or subconscious has been around since the beginning of human history and I don't see it going anywhere soon. If homosexuality is a choice, then it's obvious why it continues to manifest itself. I very much doubt that it is genetic--and if it is, I think it has to do more with hormones and the endocrine system that a "homosexual gene."



Agggggg...Im getting very, very sick, I think I might agree with you.....baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,,,,,,,,,,,,baaaaaaaaaaa, ,,,baaaaa


----------



## Gunny (Sep 11, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Not neccessarily. Look at other genetic defects, (YES! Im calling homosexuality a defect!)
> 
> *take cerebal palsy for example. I think they are incapable or very unlikely to have offspring, yet the recessive gene for it is carried  on anyways.* Also, dont forget that homosexuals sometimes do force themselves to have sex with a woman just for the sake of having offspring.
> 
> If *IF* the condition is due to genetics, then if the person is carrying the gene and forces themselves to have sex with a woman for offspring, then the response that if a person can force themselves to have sex with the opposite sex, then they arent a "true homosexual", would become irrelevant, because we would be defining a homosexual as one who carries the gene and displays it for the most part.



_"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LuvRPgrl again."_

Leave it someone who isn't part of the pro-gay faction to post the only logical argument to my original post.

My question to you would be this:

Is cerbral palsey a genetic defect, or happenstance?


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 11, 2006)

No.  You did not shoot down the fast that to appeal to nature is to commit a fallacy. The natural law fallacy (or the  appeal to nature fallacy) has been firmly established in practically countless textbooks.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 11, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


> WHile the law trys to be consistent in philosophy, it also recognizes that practicality is a necessity also. It would be impossible to determine which heterosexual couples can or cant have children, whereas it is easy to determine that NO HOMO couples can.



But homosexual couples can, theoretically, adopt children just fine. And why exactly should a married couple be obligated, as it seems you are implying, to have children in the first place?



LuvRPgrl said:


> Ahhh, and you were doing so well. This is a weak arguement at best.
> First, the 50% figure isnt accurate. While 50% of marriages might end in divorce, not nearly 50% of couples do.



I was incorrect in my (blatantly wrong) statement. You are correct that 50% of marriages do not end in divorce; I shot off my mouth before I let my brain engage. Here are some statistics on divorce rates in the U.S. Depending upon the wife's age at the start of marriage, the rate is anywhere from 58.1% (younger than 18) to as low as 18.5% (25 years and older.)



LuvRPgrl said:


> Second, no matter what the heterosexual divorce rate is, the homosexual rate will always be significantly higher.



I'd like to see some statistical data on that statement.



LuvRPgrl said:


> Third, the reason for the high divorce rate is not because of the conservatives, but due to the liberals who fought for no fault divorce, making marriage and divorce an easy thing to get into and out of, much of the time. So, now the liberals are trying to get the percentage of couples who divorce even higher?



I made no statement about the reasons behind divorces, and so I'm not going to comment on your accusation that liberals are trying to increase divorce rates, since I haven't looked into the matter. However you are correct on the no-fault divorce law increasing the number of divorces.



LuvRPgrl said:


> And what it does matter if homosexuals are furtherly filling up the family law courtrooms is this. As it stands, the courtrooms are overburdened and understaffed. This sometimes leads to a lack of time to determine the fitness of a parent. Occasionally this leads to bad decisions, child abuse, molestation and even murders. Now, if we further clog the courtroom with homosexuals arguing over who gets the pink poodle and phallic shaped couch, and EVEN ONE CHILD is harmed because of it, then I tell those homosexual to GO POUND FUCKING SAND.



Then you should go tell all the married couples who are getting divorces and who have children to 'go pound sand.' Since divorce certainly hurts children, probably the most. 

And let's stop for a minute and crunch some (assumed, but I'm going to overestimate) numbers. There are roughly 300 million people in the United States. Let's say 3% of them are homosexual. That leaves us with roughly 9 million homosexuals in the U.S. Let's say that half of them want to get married, which gives us 4.5 million homosexuals. Give them equal distribution across the United States (I'm not about to try and guess where exactly these 9 million homosexuals live) and you come out with ninety thousand homosexuals that want to get married in each of the 50 states. So forty-five thousand couples who could, theoretically, petition the family court system for a divorce. But 100% of homosexuals probably won't get divorced. Let's again give a number, say 75%, that want to get divorced, which is an extremely high number. That leaves 33,750 homosexual couples that want to get divorced, in all 50 states. But not everyone gets divorced at the same time. There are 12 months in the year, and let's say the same number of homosexuals gets divorced in each month. We are left with an extra 2,813 (rounded up) petitions to family court, per month. In some states that would be a lot, according to these statistics, but as I said I'm not about to try and determine where roughly 9 million homosexuals actually live to make the numbers better fit each state.


----------



## MissileMan (Sep 11, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Exactly my point.  Those who argue the pro-homo side make absolute statements when there is no evidence to support them.
> 
> My "study" is every bit as valid.  Natural selection would weed out most abnormalities; especially, when those who carry them are themselves incapable of reproduction due to their lifestyle.  Guess there's just too much logic involved.



First, I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic, but a developmental malfunction that occurs in-utero.  But IF it's genetic, it is certainly feasible that it's a recessive trait that occurs sometimes when the right (or wrong if you prefer) combination of parents reproduce.  There are lots of people born sterile, how did the gene that made them sterile survive?


----------



## MissileMan (Sep 11, 2006)

Reneer said:


> I'd like to see some statistical data on that statement.



Don't hold your breath!


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 12, 2006)

People keep trying to argue why civil unions should not be allowed.  They keep posting the same lame arguments and I keep shooting them down.  The old reproduction argument is pretty old. Here we go:



LuvRPgrl said:


> WHile the law trys to be consistent in philosophy, it also recognizes that practicality is a necessity also. It would be impossible to determine which heterosexual couples can or cant have children, whereas it is easy to determine that NO HOMO couples can.



First of all, thanks to modern medical procedures it is possible to determine who can or cant reproduce.  Hospitals and fertility clinics diagnose and treat infertility on a regular basis.  The process is expensive and time-consuming but it is possible. 

Some couples choose to not have children.  For homosexuals, there should be the option of adoption.  Also, there are sperm banks and surrogate mothers in case one member of the couple wants a biological child. 

The notion that gays should not be allowed to get married merely because they cant, as a couple, produce a child is insignificant if not practically irrelevant.



> ...no matter what the heterosexual divorce rate is, the homosexual rate will always be significantly higher.



There seems to be a bit of fortune telling in that comment.  Do you have any research to support that claim.  Also, please define significant. It a 2 percent difference significant? 



> Now, if we further clog the courtroom with homosexuals arguing over who gets the pink poodle and phallic shaped couch, and EVEN ONE CHILD is harmed because of it, then I tell those homosexual to GO POUND FUCKING SAND.



Your last argument just amounts to saying, "We are too busy.  Get lost".  I agree that the courtroom is overworked.  Lets reduce the workload of family court by restricting marriage.  Lets raise the minimum age for marriage to 30.  Young kids dont understand commitment anyway.  Only those of the same religion and race are allowed to get married.  Yet, that would not be fair to white people who choose relationships with black people,  or protestant people who like Catholics. Still by restricting marriage there would be fewer divorce proceedings.  There.  That should provide enough room for gay marriage to not overburden the court system.

By the way, I doubt that disputes associated with gay divorce will greatly burden the court system.  Lets do some math:

What percentage of the population is gay?  I think that, according to conservatives, only 2 percent is gay. Of that 2 percent, what percentage will actually get married if gay marriage is allowed?  Lets say that half follow through and get married. That concerns only 1 percent of the population.  Of that 1 percent of the population, what percentage will get a divorce? Lets say 50 percent. Of that .50 percent of the population, what percentage will go to court to dispute child custody and other issues?  Lets say half. 

So, by my estimates, if we allow gay marriage, family court will have an additional one half to one quarter of one percent of the population to contend with.


----------



## dmp (Sep 12, 2006)

I'm wondering if this thread is Genetic...


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 12, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> People keep trying to argue why *civil unions *should not be allowed.  They keep posting the same lame arguments and I keep shooting them down.  The old reproduction argument is pretty old. Here we go:
> 
> First of all, thanks to modern medical procedures it is possible to determine who can or cant reproduce.  Hospitals and fertility clinics diagnose and treat infertility on a regular basis.  The process is expensive and time-consuming but it is possible.
> 
> ...




which is it civil union or marriage? bait and switch argument.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 12, 2006)

manu1959 said:


> which is it civil union or marriage? bait and switch argument.



Okay - okay.  Conservatives, in general, seem to have a hang-up with the word Marriage.  Id let them have the word.  It is just a word to me. Civil Unions would accomplish the same things for all practical purpose.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 12, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> ......
> Some couples choose to not [?] have children.  For homosexuals, there should be the option of adoption.  Also, there are sperm banks and surrogate mothers in case one member of the couple wants a biological child.
> 
> ......



It appears that you have denigrated children to the level of objects- to be obtained by and to please its adult owner like a house, car, or a dog. If the well being of an orphan is of any concern to you at all, then you should agree that gays should not be allowed to adopt unless a stable heterosexual married couple cannot be found.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 12, 2006)

glockmail said:


> It appears that you have denigrated children to the level of objects- to be obtained by and to please its adult owner like a house, car, or a dog. If the well being of an orphan is of any concern to you at all, then you should agree that gays should not be allowed to adopt unless a stable heterosexual married couple cannot be found.



It appears as though you tried to put words in my mouth.  I understand that children are not objects like houses or cars. The well being of children is of concern to me.  I have even given to charities whose concern is children.  In my opinion, a child would do best if adopted by a loving, committed heterosexual couple.  There are more children than there are such couples willing to adopt them.  That being the case, I think that it would be better for a child to be adopted by a loving committed homosexual couple than for the child to remain indefinitely in an orphanage.


----------



## archangel (Sep 12, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Then get glasses you ignorant fool.  Uh - not name calling - just a fact Jack - LOL.  There is oral sex  gay or straight.  There is anal sex  gay or straight.  There is a wide variety of sexual activity.  Homosexual behavior is no more or less sexually mature behavior than is heterosexual behavior. Again, I challenge you to prove otherwise.





You are about as dense as lead...did you eat way to many lead paint chips as a child? Sorry Mr.Pervert...I am against having sex with my children as well as abnormal immature homosexual sex...not to mention being against child porn and gay marriage...I don't relate to smokers as being equal in harm to children as I do transexuals and fornicators of child porn and deviant behavior...so if this makes me a biggot or in need of new reading glasses so be it...now seek help!


----------



## dmp (Sep 12, 2006)

As much as it hurts to quote Bon Jovi...


something about 'Down in a blaze of Glory?'


----------

