225 replies to this topic

[Beowulf]

Being gay is a choice just as you chose what will you wear or eat. Is it a good or a bad choice, is not on us to decide, but it is a choice. Not a genetic mutation that makes them gay.

I can tell you from experience that this is not a fucking choice. I am not gay, but I am bisexual. This is just a ridiculous statement to make and the fact people still believe it is a testament to religious fundamentalism's lingering effects.

I'll make it simple, you're an idiot.

[Romanul]

No, what he wants to say is that gay people are mutants.

Those Teenage mutant ninja turtles were suspicious to me from the first time I saw them.

What a pitiful attempt at humour.

I think Romanul was explaining how even if homosexuality derives from a genetic variation, in other words a mutation, then this is in no sense abominable - it defines independence. Much of the pseudo-science employed by homophobes lays emphasis on the genetic mutation factor, thus indicating that a mutation is automatically bad, despite mutations such as sickle cell trait, which studies show heavily reduce the risk of malaria contraction. In any case, they ignore the environmental influence.

Yes,this is what I meant,and this is what I think that it might be the thing that can influence homophobes to think a bit more,and wake up that they aren't that different.Hell,after how much we work in our life,after how much we (can) do in it,after all the good things we can do,does it really matter what we do in bed?...

[Imagine]

Yes,this is what I meant,and this is what I think that it might be the thing that can influence homophobes to think a bit more,and wake up that they aren't that different.Hell,after how much we work in our life,after how much we (can) do in it,after all the good things we can do,does it really matter what we do in bed?...

No.. no it doesn't. To be honest where would we be without homosexuals? At the very least I would be writing in German to you well maybe seeing as the person who cracked enigma was a homosexual himself

[Bart]

I'm a believer of the chaos theory, so I think that without homosexuals (or dan brown, or ikea, or 4chan) the world would be very different indeed.

[Vortigern]

Without Dan Brown the world would be a much better place. Of this there can be no doubt.

[duke_Qa]

Homosexuals ain't nothing new to humanity. It might be genetic, it might be social, it probably is a combination of the two. People are more free to build their own social circles these days than before, which brings us more radical ways of living.

People are stupid therefore religion is good since it keeps stupid people in line and smart people proper.

A good philosophy, although it can get caught in "the trap of socialism": Everyone is boiling in a pot, and if someone with the will and ability to pull themselves out of the water, they get pulled down by the others because the others are jealous and enjoy sharing misery.

Also, Israel would have been a perfectly normal nation a hundred years ago, but they are being imperialistic in an age of globalism and mass media, a hard time to spin the spin the right way.

[Pasidon]

Israel is new. At the birth of every nation there is political nonsense that'll last until all the radicals are either dead or converted.

Well, the research is leaning towards being some sort of genetic trait but it is not conclusive yet.

Research also says we ate Neanderthals to extinction. Hot headed science has no insight in human development. According to every generic scientist, humans grow up without environmental factors so adults are what their genes tell them to be alone. Genes are created to ensure survival at greater odds, so why would any gene go rouge and make humans less likely to benefit their species by being attracted to their same gender? Horses breed with donkeys because they are easily confused by viable mates. Homosexuals became homosexuals by the same factors: environmental illusion as I like to call it.

[Beowulf]

You care to back any of that up, Pasidon? Environment has a lot to do with human development. And I'm not sure if you're aware but homosexual animals exist in nature and this has been documented countless times. Kinda takes the wind out of your sails, doesn't it?

[Pasidon]

No. You backed up my statements in saying 'Environment has a lot to do with human development' and saying 'homosexual animals exist in nature'. Humans are animals, just like rabbits. Male rabbits attempt to breed with males because of environmental illusion, the untempered minds of the beasts easily confused by available mates. Humans are no different. In gaining sexual temperance, a human male can be easily confused by male human traits and forever be rewritten in what they believe to me a viable mate. Therefore homosexuality is caused by environmental factors, not genetic ones. My evidence: genetics doesn't have a sense of humor.

[Puppeteer]

And what causes the confusion?
Your conclusion is entirely flawed.
I'd wager that genes are the major component.

[Nertea]

Israel is new. At the birth of every nation there is political nonsense that'll last until all the radicals are either dead or converted.

Well, the research is leaning towards being some sort of genetic trait but it is not conclusive yet.

Research also says we ate Neanderthals to extinction. Hot headed science has no insight in human development. According to every generic scientist, humans grow up without environmental factors so adults are what their genes tell them to be alone. Genes are created to ensure survival at greater odds, so why would any gene go rouge and make humans less likely to benefit their species by being attracted to their same gender? Horses breed with donkeys because they are easily confused by viable mates. Homosexuals became homosexuals by the same factors: environmental illusion as I like to call it.

That's not really how genetic variation works. Since genes themeslves don't have brains, they have no way of knowing at time of mutation whether they'll be beneficial to reproduction or not. If a gene doesn't improve survial, over time individuals that have this gene will be less likely to reproduce, thus not passing that mutation on. On the other hand, if the mutation helps survival, offspring will be more successful, they'll likely pass the gene on, etc. That's just basic evolutionary theory.

Read an interesting bit on this somewhere where somebody said "well, since homesexuality is a bad trait with regards to species survival, why hasn't it been selected out?". The couterpoint to this was that because of how religion and general society has demonized it so much, people who were homosexual still had kids and such. Therefore, the mutation survives in the species with a much higher occurence than it would have if we all were still cavemen. Kinda random point, but it made me think about how society screws with basic evolution.

Just think - genetically I have poor eyesight, which I inherited from my mom. If I didn't have my contacts/glasses, I'd probably be eaten by a tiger. Therefore my screwed up vision mutation doesn't decrease my chance of species reproduction anymore. Mutation gets passed on when 'normally' it probably wouldn't have. Depending on how dominant or recessive that trait is, I wonder if in 200 years, we'll all need glasses?

[Pasidon]

I wouldn't say genes don't have intelligence. Progress in evolution would be impossible if microscopic factors could not comprehend.

The organic body is useless. People claim to breed and eat because they cause positive stimuli more than because it benefits the species and them-selfs. Genotypes do this because the organic body would be clueless without stimuli. Temptation to gain stimuli is the reason for homosexuality, yet it's there so any human will get the picture what to do. You can breed gays and lesbians together all you like, but their genes will only dictate what will benefit the individual for the sake of the species, not how they use their chemical dogma. Stimuli explains why rabbits and dogs breed with anything they can, not directly from genetics. And it continues to annoy me when humans tie passion and love into science when it isn't a science itself, but primitive self-pleasing and testosterone educed hallucinations.

[Rob38]

Well, the research is leaning towards being some sort of genetic trait but it is not conclusive yet.

Research also says we ate Neanderthals to extinction. Hot headed science has no insight in human development. According to every generic scientist, humans grow up without environmental factors so adults are what their genes tell them to be alone. Genes are created to ensure survival at greater odds, so why would any gene go rouge and make humans less likely to benefit their species by being attracted to their same gender? Horses breed with donkeys because they are easily confused by viable mates. Homosexuals became homosexuals by the same factors: environmental illusion as I like to call it.

I'm not getting my research from Yahoo news. The research I have gathered comes from journals that are peer-reviewed and methodologically sound. Sure, there is some bad "science" out there but I wouldn't even consider it science. And again, as stated before, please don't state opinions as fact. I doubt every genetic scientist believes what you stated above.

[Pasidon]

I wouldn't even believe the head of the department of research and engineering if he claimed to know something that he can't prove. None of us can prove anything, nor can our sources until someone actually proves a side to our debate with hard evidence. The homo-erotic allele is a theory... my side is all theory. Theory is opinion, but in all relativity, I haven't started any opinions except the allele hypothesis is wrong. I know biotic engineering more than any lab lackey who's only motivation these days is a pay check and a pat on the back who only writes journals to get credit for whatever they're picking at. As now I will state since we're on the subject... it is my opinion that this whole genetic side to homo-sexual behavior is to please the masses. There is no evidence... no newly discovered chromosome that puts an end to my ranting. It all ties in very well with the original subject... science has turned into the work rat for religion. This gene would give retribution to homosexuals... they can state their nature is written just as well as heterosexuals and get their rights. I could care less who has rights, but I do care if science is being twisted for the unacceptable use of toying with politics. There's only room for one god in this debate, and theirs is not that god.

[Maiglin]

Well said Pasidon.

@Beowulf: Fuck you.

[Puppeteer]

Maiglin any more of that and you're receiving a warn. We don't warn for swearing, but we do when it's either excessive and not constructive, or purely antagonistic. Fortunately, you've hit both.

Also, this is an interesting (and in parts humorous) article, from a reputable site: http://www.independe...ims-497402.html

Edited by Puppeteer, 02 April 2010 - 11:43 AM.

[Mathijs]

Hot damn, Pasidon. Just when I thought you weren't going to stoop any lower. ''Templar'' Catholic? Hahaha. That's gold.

And Maiglin, go suck a dick or two, I'm sure that will relieve you of your sexual frustrations and bring you right out of that tight little closet you were locked into by whatever it was that indoctrinated your dumb ass. Jesus Christ, from under what rock did you come crawling?

[Elvenlord]

Now now, Matias, you know you have to add something constructive to the topic

[Pasidon]

I suppose he could just tag 'April fools' at the end of his post and get away with it.

Hot damn, Pasidon. Just when I thought you weren't going to stoop any lower. ''Templar'' Catholic? Hahaha. That's gold.

It turns out Catholicism isn't bad when you disobey the commandments of the Pope.

[Beowulf]

@Beowulf: Fuck you.

Scratch a nerve, did I? How about you construct a real argument instead of just trying to insult me. Pathetic.

I'll probably get a warn for that, but it proves another point of mine: religious people hate it when things like "facts" and personal testimony ruin their bigotry.