Forum archive
ParanoiaAgentActually, scientists are unsure if there is a gay gene at all.Did I, or did I not say that the research was unconclusive?
ParanoiaAgentTheir genes will not pass on, but the existence of gays is not being affected by natural selection, which is what tehuber wrote.I think you'll find that's not what tehuber wrote. If you actually read what he said instead of trying to score points, you'll see that he was referring to gays in the individual sense and not gays as in the collective.
LookintheMirrorFor the other guySince I was baptised a Catholic,are you saying I should accept things that you decide.What you are doing is the same as telling a Muslim(since your bringing in Asians) to accept eating a bacon sandwich.Assuming I am "the other guy", yes, that is what tolerance is about. You don't have to like it, just accept it.
ParanoiaAgentWrong, the fact that gay people are born gay does not mean that they are not "being weeded out" by natural selection. One's parents being straight does not make one straight automatically. Actually, more people creating children will only force the number of gays to rise. In fact, as our culture is no longer opposed to homosexuality as much, the percentage of active gays can only rise as well, and it has.Try learning biology before you mouth off, son.Assuming homosexuality is genetic (as you say, scientists are unsure), homosexual activities do not allow the possibility of procreation and therefore there is no child to inherit the so-called "gay gene".EDIT: inb4'd by nex.
http://www.avert.org/gay-people.htm
ParanoiaAgentActually, scientists are unsure if there is a gay gene at all. Thus, there could be one. And it is still not a choice, as your body is not controllable. This is agreed upon almost universally.As nex said, I was not referring to gays collectively, but I can easily construct an argument for this if you wish.Still assuming homosexuality is genetic, it must logically be a recessive gene (or the result of a combination of genes), otherwise the majority of the human race would be gay and that clearly is counter-productive to the perpetuation of the species. This means that manifestation of homosexuality must result from a statistically unlikely pair of "carrier" parents, or perhaps gays who procreate heterosexually with a carrier partner (this in itself is also statistically unlikely).Obviously, a large enough sample size will result in the fruition of these events, but what's important here is the proportion of these to the norm. As you say, acceptance of homosexuality has increased, but this does not mean there is a higher ratio of gays to straights than there used to be. It merely means that a higher proportion of the existing gay population is willing to express their sexuality openly, and this is the true cause of the statistical fluctuation you cite. They remain outliers.Now, perhaps you'll care to explain why you think I'm wrong before you pull facts out of your ass.EDIT: But wait, there's more!
Their genes will not pass on, but the existence of gays is not being affected by natural selection, which is what tehuber wrote.
^This is essentially saying gays will be weeded out. And this is wrong. If anything, the number and percentage of gays will rise (as it is).
darkrequiem · #42Yes, you said it was. And? I was just saying that people cannot choose what their body reacts to. Thus, being gay is not a choice.Hey, guess what? The body is controlled by the mind. Guess who controls the mind.
darkrequiem · #42What tehuber wrote...; That won't happen either, funny enough. Since there is no gay gene, the inability of gays to normally have children will not change anything. Straight parents mean nothing when it comes to their child being straight or gay. The genes have no effect, as you said yourself. So the parents' sexual preference won't really change the child's.Stop contradicting yourself. Does the gay gene exist or not? You can't have it both ways. It's simply pathetic to vacillate just because an opposing claim suits your argument better than your own claim.
Tehuber specifically wrote that the natural selection process will "dispose" of gays. That is false, as I said, in both ways. Individually and collectively.
darkrequiem · #42I'm not attempting to score points. If I wanted approval, I would pretend to side with the majority in this topic.Last time I checked, the majority here does support gay rights. In case all those threads on religion, capital punishment and such didn't tip you off, this place is so left-wing it isn't even funny. It just comes off as self-righteousness now.
trimbletown · #43Assuming I am "the other guy", yes, that is what tolerance is about. You don't have to like it, just accept it.You are a far bigger moron than I expected. Tolerance does not mean forcing others to accept your beliefs, it means accepting what they believe.
tehuber1337 · #45Assuming homosexuality is genetic (as you say, scientists are unsure), homosexual activities do not allow the possibility of procreation and therefore there is no child to inherit the so-called "gay gene".I never said there was a gay gene, I said homsexuality was not a choice.
tehuber1337 · #45Obviously, a large enough sample size will result in the fruition of these events, but what's important here is the proportion of these to the norm. As you say, acceptance of homosexuality has increased, but this does not mean there is a higher ratio of gays to straights than there used to be. It merely means that a higher proportion of the existing gay population is willing to express their sexuality openly, and this is the true cause of the statistical fluctuation you cite. They remain outliers.Actually, as tolerance rises, the number of would-be gays rise as well. There are countless people who live a straight relationship because of fear of intolerance. As tolerance rises, those would-be people actually practice gay relationships.
tehuber1337EDIT: But wait, there's more!Hey, guess what? The body is controlled by the mind. Guess who controls the mind.We do not control our minds either. We use a rather small fraction of it.
tehuber1337 · #45Stop contradicting yourself. Does the gay gene exist or not? You can't have it both ways. It's simply pathetic to vacillate just because an opposing claim suits your argument better than your own claim.As I said, I never said a gay gene exists. I said we cannot control our sexual preference, or our body. The body is controlled by the mind, but we do not control our minds.
tehuber1337 · #45Last time I checked, the majority here does support gay rights. In case all those threads on religion, capital punishment and such didn't tip you off, this place is so left-wing it isn't even funny. It just comes off as self-righteousness now.I wasn't referring to this forum specifically, I was referring to real life.It seems that you failed to read my posts carefully.
Devon · #46I hope this post doesn't get lost in all the RAGE. Anyway, here's some literature:Same Sex, Different Politics: Success and Failure in the Struggles over Gay RightsOne of the few helpful posts in this thread
http://rapidshare.com/#!download|252|245893376|0226544095.rar|1106Irreconcilable Differences?: Intellectual Stalemate in the Gay Rights Debate
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=83G4W9LHPolitical Institutions and Lesbian and Gay Rights in the United States and Canada
http://depositfiles.com/en/files/r83r4qatfGay Rights and Moral Panic: The Origins of America's Debate on Homosexuality
http://www.filesonic.com/file/16972939/47-1403980691+.zipGay and Lesbian Rights: A Guide for GLBT Singles, Couples and Families
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QZ2NUJKSMaking Gay History: The Half Century Fight for Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights
http://uploading.com/files/4DC1BI8L/MaGaHis.rar.htmlNone of these links are checked for accuracy. I'm not really interested in the subject myself.
Good luck on your paper.
tehuber1337 · #45You are a far bigger moron than I expected. Tolerance does not mean forcing others to accept your beliefs, it means accepting what they believe.Is that what he's doing, you pompous ass-tard?
tarotmaniacAlso on a side not, what do you guys think of Gay rights? Pro? Anti? Apathetic? Comment Below. Thanks in advance for the help.
someirishkid · #48would you guys just fuck off to the spam thread or something?he wanted our opinion, we're giving it. if you have nothing of value to add to the subject please leave the thread.
One of the few helpful posts in this thread
someirishkid · #50It's like you guys want this to be lockedWell it is the school holidays aint it.
darkrequiem · #47I never said there was a gay gene, I said homsexuality was not a choice.
ParanoiaAgentActually, scientists are unsure if there is a gay gene at all. Thus, there could be one.
darkrequiem · #47Actually, as tolerance rises, the number of would-be gays rise as well. There are countless people who live a straight relationship because of fear of intolerance. As tolerance rises, those would-be people actually practice gay relationships.Thank you for repeating what I said without understanding what I was saying. You'll go far in life.
darkrequiem · #47We do not control our minds either. We use a rather small fraction of it.Speak for yourself.
darkrequiem · #47As I said, I never said a gay gene exists. I said we cannot control our sexual preference, or our body. The body is controlled by the mind, but we do not control our minds.See above. First you say scientists are unsure and a gay gene could exist, then you say there is no gay gene. This, pal, is called vacillating and it's pathetic.
darkrequiem · #47I wasn't referring to this forum specifically, I was referring to real life.So? As you said, tolerance is increasing. Everyone I know accepts homosexuality, even if they don't condone it.
darkrequiem · #47It seems that you failed to read my posts carefully.Again, speak for yourself. I'm a thorough guy and read your posts to the letter, regardless of how mind-numbingly retarded they are.
trimbletown · #49Is that what he's doing, you pompous ass-tard?As a matter of fact it is, you hypocritical dumbass. LookintheMirror has only ever stated his belief that homosexuality is disgusting. Never has he claimed that homosexuals themselves are disgusting, or anything of the like.By the way, how freaking childish must you be to use the excuse "he's doing it, so I can too"? Grow up.
trimbletown · #49And with that, I leave this fruitless ignorance-fest. Any further attacks will fall on deaf ears.Smartest thing you've ever said.
darkrequiem · #54Large quotes are annoying, I'll just respond with each "point" at a time.- You fail to understand half of what I said, and you only pick certain words to respond to, naturally.- If I've misunderstood you, then by all means, correct me.
- I meant that humans do not use their brain to it's actual capabilities, at all. Nor can we control it.
- I said a gay gene may exist, because it may. For this argument however, I was assuming it does not exist, since LookintheMirror does not think it does.
- As I said....Since tolerance is increasing, the number of gays will. People who are hardwired to be gay may not have gay relationships due to intolerance. As tolerance increases, more people will now come out.
- Your insults only prove your immaturity.
p4tman · #58IMO I think homosexuality is wrong and should not exist, for both female and male.If god exists, then it created gay people. If god wanted them gone, he would have eradicated them (god's done so many times to other thing it dislikes)
And as my dad explained to me while I was young, if god (Implying god existed) wanted there to be a gay community it would have created Adam and Steve not Adam and Eve. ( Just pitching my opinions.)