[fluff]

Defect.
Simply put.
If we look at evolution, homosexuality is about as counterproductive as possible. It serves the same purpose as mental retardation or siamese twins.

Do you understand the theory of evolution at all? Or are you a secret adherent of the ID philosophy?

Evolution is due to random genetic mutation and natural selection. Therefore that fact that sex is enjoyable not due to design any more than the fact that your finger fits up your nose. Reproduction is essential for the continued existence of the species, mutations that reproduce more effectively will dominate. That biological drive to reproduce that you believe in is a myth, the drive a man has when he sees a beautiful woman is not to reproduce with her, it is to have sex with her; sex is enjoyable, having a million screaming brats around you is not. That sex is enjoyable leads us to more sex which eventually leads to reproduction which leads to those members of the species that enjoy sex predominating.

So the evolutionary process is to do with a mutuation provided more nerve endings and pleasure, with enhanced reproductive output an effect not a cause that leads to more offspring that enjoy sex, etc. Those mutations that do not enjoy sex will reproduce less and eventually die out.

Further evidence that the enjoyment of sex is not to do with a reproductive drive is masturbation. According to your view of biology it serves no purpose and is wrong. So every man on the planet (and probably most women though I have less personal experience of being a woman) is just as evil as those terrible gays. The reason people masturbate is because it is enjoyable, the reason people have sex is because it is enjoyable. The reason people have kids is because they are stupid.

Start believing in God, it'll simplify your belief system.

 

[fluff]

Well it depends on the viewpoint. Biologically speaking, it's more wrong than pedophilia because its less likely to result in reproduction. As a health issue, it is a dangerous lifestyle. To put a label of "natural" on something is the same as giving it no title at all because everything that has ever happened is natural. Even the most toxic, nuclear waste is a result of humans making use of a natural environment. Can it be helped? How do you mean? Eradicated? Sure, if you could abort gay babies before they were born, provided there IS a gay gene.
Im not saying Id condone such a thing, however.

There are plenty of people who engage in sex with both genders (generally known as bisexual). They are as reproductive as heterosexual people so your argument about reproduction is false. AIDS is now being spread in Africa most extensively by heterosexual sex, so your health argument is false (promiscuous sex is dangerous, gay or straight).

And as we have seen above, your evolution argument is false.

So you are left with only prejudice.

 

[BurlyShirley]

That biological drive to reproduce that you believe in is a myth, the drive a man has when he sees a beautiful woman is not to reproduce with her, it is to have sex with her;

your lack of understanding here is profound. You simply cannot grasp the concept of instinct.

Further evidence that the enjoyment of sex is not to do with a reproductive drive is masturbation. According to your view of biology it serves no purpose and is wrong.

Again you prove you have no understanding of the human process. Masturbation is necessary for a few purposes, but most notably as a "use it or lose it" function. To ensure that the production of the reproductive organs continue to produce sperm when it comes time to mate.

So every man on the planet (and probably most women though I have less personal experience of being a woman) is just as evil as those terrible gays. The reason people masturbate is because it is enjoyable, the reason people have sex is because it is enjoyable. The reason people have kids is because they are stupid.

No one said anything about evil or terrible. I can see that since your argument floundered long ago, you're trying to turn this into a debate of hate vs. simple science. I only have the beliefs I do because Ive been shown the proof through education.

Start believing in God, it'll simplify your belief system.

I think Ive broken it down pretty simply for you, actually. I dont know how to make it any easier.

 

[BurlyShirley]

There are plenty of people who engage in sex with both genders (generally known as bisexual). They are as reproductive as heterosexual people so your argument about reproduction is false. AIDS is now being spread in Africa most extensively by heterosexual sex, so your health argument is false (promiscuous sex is dangerous, gay or straight).

And as we have seen above, your evolution argument is false.

So you are left with only prejudice.

Again you're trying to resort to the hate.

Look up the stats. If a gay male and straight female both have sex with an HIV positive gay male, the other gay is at a substancially higher risk than the female.
Look at an area where AIDS rates are not so high (such as the UK or US) and see what the numbers say.

 

[BurlyShirley]

DNA can't "sense" doodly squat. Small variations find favor in the environment once expressed.

Gay happens. It needs no explanation. I seriously doubt there's any larger percentage now than there's ever been of teh fay so thinking of it in evolutionary terms as far as "purpose" goes nowhere.

Why does it not need explanation? Is that not the point of science to begin with?

 

[fluff]

Shirley.

Please explain the scientific basis of your comments about instinct.

Check out the spread of AIDS in Africa.

You mentioned crime, crime is associated with bad things. Quit wriggling and start explaining.

Quit the insults, so far you have produced nothing logical yet you try and deride others' lack of understanding.

 

[fluff]

Shirley, I'll ask the questions one at a time:

Do you believe in evolution as the origin of species?

 

[fluff]

Again you're trying to resort to the hate.

Look up the stats. If a gay male and straight female both have sex with an HIV positive gay male, the other gay is at a substancially higher risk than the female.
Look at an area where AIDS rates are not so high (such as the UK or US) and see what the numbers say.

Hate? What hate? Does prejudice equate to hate for you?

We all have prejudices, just some more than others. The important thing is to recognise them.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Shirley.

Please explain the scientific basis of your comments about instinct.

Check out the spread of AIDS in Africa.

You mentioned crime, crime is associated with bad things. Quit wriggling and start explaining.

Quit the insults, so far you have produced nothing logical yet you try and deride others' lack of understanding.

Can't you read? He already answered all those things. It's so simple, geez!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Why does it not need explanation? Is that not the point of science to begin with?

OK, Mr. Science, the current explanation is that it is as natural as any other phenomena, like hair color for instance. Get over it you bigot.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Again you're trying to resort to the hate.

Look up the stats. If a gay male and straight female both have sex with an HIV positive gay male, the other gay is at a substancially higher risk than the female.
Look at an area where AIDS rates are not so high (such as the UK or US) and see what the numbers say.

So, your argument now is that a virus that has evolved itself to be able to spread more easily in certain environments (and let me point out that once again you are focusing on male homosexuals) somehow makes gays bad. Red herring.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

your lack of understanding here is profound. You simply cannot grasp the concept of instinct.

You should be the expert, because your whole entire "argument" (if you can call it that) is predicated on your insistence that instinct trumps all. That might be true for you, but most of us aren't troglodytes.

No one said anything about evil or terrible. I can see that since your argument floundered long ago, you're trying to turn this into a debate of hate vs. simple science. I only have the beliefs I do because Ive been shown the proof through education.

You said it was a crime. Show me the proof that being a homosexual is a crime. You claim to have it, so where is it? Put up or shut up.

I think Ive broken it down pretty simply for you, actually. I dont know how to make it any easier.

Answer our questions.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Necrophilia is natural, how else could I get laid?

​

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Well it depends on the viewpoint. Biologically speaking, it's more wrong than pedophilia because its less likely to result in reproduction.

And your viewpoint is bigoted and wholly non-reality based. If you want to think that humans are strictly slaves to our biological wants and needs, you can, but you would be stupid to do so. When you see a pretty woman on the street, do you jump on her? Why would people use contraceptives? Isn't the biological imperative to reproduce hampered by that? And, I could go on, but I don't want to make you look any more stupid.

As a health issue, it is a dangerous lifestyle.

Mostly because the homophobic leaders of our country (Reagan for one) ignored the problem for so long.

To put a label of "natural" on something is the same as giving it no title at all because everything that has ever happened is natural.

"Natural" in this respect means not everything that has happened or could possibly happen, but that which continues to perpetuate. There have been gays all throughout history, and the trend continues today.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

​

Hey man, I take it any way I can get it.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

...and again you join a thread and add nothing.

Actually, Transcend asked you a question and you dodged it. It is you who added nothing to the discussion.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Defect.
Simply put.
If we look at evolution, homosexuality is about as counterproductive as possible. It serves the same purpose as mental retardation or siamese twins.

Idiot.

Everything that makes us human could be described as a defect.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I could care less if you are patient or not. You simply arent adding anything but crap to this thread and miss the point of every post. I could care less if you think Im a bully or if you think my logic is flawed. If you dont want to be part of the debate, dont. Or deal with it how it is.

I'm back now, and I find all of your idiocy spread over this thread like manure, and it smells about the same. I have been patient with your personal attacks, but no more.

I'm not the only one missing your point, as you would be able to tell if YOU could read. Of course, it's hard to find a point when you can't actually articulate what it is. You are a simplistic buffoon.

 

[kidwoo]

Why does it not need explanation? Is that not the point of science to begin with?

Well the explanation is actually pretty simple. There was all this ecstasy lying around which pushed some good brain buttons, but we were just so darn antsy. We needed some groove. Along came the boys with their house music and voila, boogie progression. N7 also needed someone to design his shirts.

 

[BurlyShirley]

You are a simplistic buffoon.

That's fine in this case because its a very simple concept to grasp. That you're avoiding what you know to be true and what Ive laid out in as simple of terms as possible shows that you're not willing to accept fact if it does not agree with your agenda. You blast republicans/christians (niether of which am I) for the same thing all the time. Its pathetic really and any objective observer of this debate can clearly see my point is valid. You can continue to deny it or keep attempting your little hate tangents, but it doesnt change any of the facts Ive laid out.

Do you think Im supposed to care that you're not patient? You havent open to a new thought yet, who gives a **** what you think? You havent made a valid point yet and either are too stupid to grasp simple biology, or simply refuse to because of your own little values. Boo hoo. I dont care.

 

[fluff]

That's fine in this case because its a very simple concept to grasp. That you're avoiding what you know to be true and what Ive laid out in as simple of terms as possible shows that you're not willing to accept fact if it does not agree with your agenda. You blast republicans/christians (niether of which am I) for the same thing all the time. Its pathetic really and any objective observer of this debate can clearly see my point is valid. You can continue to deny it or keep attempting your little hate tangents, but it doesnt change any of the facts Ive laid out.

Do you think Im supposed to care that you're not patient? You havent open to a new thought yet, who gives a **** what you think? You havent made a valid point yet and either are too stupid to grasp simple biology, or simply refuse to because of your own little values. Boo hoo. I dont care.

How many people do you think you have got your 'point' across to in this thread?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

That's fine in this case because its a very simple concept to grasp. That you're avoiding what you know to be true and what Ive laid out in as simple of terms as possible shows that you're not willing to accept fact if it does not agree with your agenda. You blast republicans/christians (niether of which am I) for the same thing all the time. Its pathetic really and any objective observer of this debate can clearly see my point is valid. You can continue to deny it or keep attempting your little hate tangents, but it doesnt change any of the facts Ive laid out.

Do you think Im supposed to care that you're not patient? You havent open to a new thought yet, who gives a **** what you think? You havent made a valid point yet and either are too stupid to grasp simple biology, or simply refuse to because of your own little values. Boo hoo. I dont care.

No, it is you who doesn't grasp biology.

Your assertion is that we are ruled by instinct, yet you can't back that assertion up. You assert that homosexuality is some sort of crime because two homosexuals can not reproduce, but neither can many people and you don't call that a crime.

You are also trying to couple sexual stimulation to reproduction. While it is true that sexual stimulation probably evolved as a way to entice reproduction, it doesn't mean that they necessarily remain wholly dependent on each other. By your logic, thumbs evolved as a way to grasp things, so if I use my thumb for anything else (giving a thumbs up or down) then I am not using my thumb for its intended purpose, and therefore am acting in a criminal fashion (biologically speaking of course.) You also fail to note that animals go into heat and are generally not receptive to sexual advances when not in heat. Although it is true that many women experience increased sexual arousal during ovulation, humans are generally up for sex at any time.

Edit: I should have said that sexual stimulation was a mutation (or series of mutations) that was naturally selected and therefore passed on to subsequent generations.

 

[fluff]

Nothing evolves for a purpose, mutations are not driven. Mutations that enjoy sex have an advantage because they will reproduce more quickly. Nothing about us has an 'intended' purpose.

There is no design.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Nothing evolves for a purpose, mutations are not driven. Mutations that enjoy sex have an advantage because they will reproduce more quickly. Nothing about us has an 'intended' purpose.

There is no design.

You are right of course, and I did not mean to imply that sexual stimulation evolved with the intended purpose of doing anything. That was sloppy verbiage on my part.

 

[fluff]

Had to do something to help save this clunker of a thread. How about this
"I used to be a necrophiliac until some rotten cunt split on me"
There I've shot my quiver of necrophilia jokes. Happy now?

That was better - clunker of a thread, eh?

 

[BurlyShirley]

You two are just too stupid. Discussion over. I win. Thanks for playing.

 

[fluff]

You two are just too stupid. Discussion over. I win. Thanks for playing.

Nope - that qualifies as a definite flounce, which is a clear indication of your inability to debate.

You lose!

Come back anytime...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You two are just too stupid. Discussion over. I win. Thanks for playing.

Us two and all the other people on this thread that disagreed with you I assume?

The fact that you can't even answer a simple question about your position speaks volumes.

 

[valve bouncer]

That was better - clunker of a thread, eh?

You're welcome. I saved this thread from the wasteland of page 2.

 

[MikeD]

Again you're trying to resort to the hate.

Look up the stats. If a gay male and straight female both have sex with an HIV positive gay male, the other gay is at a substancially higher risk than the female.

Well, unless the dude's a real stud and she asks for it in the can... The risk of transmission is an anal thing, which also limits reproduction.

I just don't get where a perceived biological efficiency starts to amount to a normative/moral 'right' or 'wrong.'

I say 'perceived' because most people's view of evolution is, to me, screwed up. What survives, passes on its traits. That's really it. Anything else, such as 'survival of the fittest,' is our own mental construct. There's no right or wrong or progress or regression grand design in it from a biological perspective. There's only survival.

(Now, you can see some societal values as an outgrowth of what helped us survive as a species, now civilization, but we're not prisoner to keeping societal values entirely static simply because of biology.)

I guess we can try and encapsulate what has managed to happen biologically under the umbrella 'natural selection' for our own convenience, but the term is abused in the way we now think of it as an almost theistic process, in which there's a judging of fitness in the act of passing on the genes. "Fitness," which is only a result of our perception, is self-defined as "having been able and/or simply lucky enough to pass on genetic material to progeny."

The danger, to me, is when biology takes on a theistic role...this happens when religious freaks feel threatened by biology and science, and when atheistic scientist-types feel the need to enslave themselves to a concept and labor underneath it as if it were a monotheism in and of itself. Science does good things (and bad things) for us...it's a tool, and a damned useful one, not a form of spirituality.

Oh, and as for accounting for where homosexuality serves, biologically, who cares? It's an interesting project for biologists and geneticists, and I'd like to see real science on it, but as Fluff put it, it's there, period, and we're neither agents of God nor Darwin here to stomp out the irregularities, rarities, or differences.


MD

 

[Transcend]

The danger, to me, is when biology takes on a theistic role...this happens when religious freaks feel threatened by biology and scienc

Or when homophobes feel the need to voice their ignorance.

 

[MMike]

Or when homophobes feel the need to voice their ignorance.

you're a homophobophobe

 

[MikeD]

There are some strict scientists who find it reprehensible that our society doesn't acknowledge the inherent biological efficiency in mating girls with mature males as soon as they're biologically able to bear children.

I think many of these concerned scientists have second jobs in the music video industry.

 

[Changleen]

That's what I love about these high school girls - I keep getting older, they stay the same age.

 

[fluff]

That's what I love about these high school girls - I keep getting older, they stay the same age.

This post bothers me - what did you mean?

 

[Transcend]

That's what I love about these high school girls - I keep getting older, they stay the same age.

Best
movie
EVER

 

[Changleen]

Best
movie
EVER

It is indeed an awesome movie.

I like: "Uh, I'll pay you on Tuesday and sh1t."

 

[fluff]

OK, what movie?

 

[Transcend]

It is indeed an awesome movie.

I like: "Uh, I'll pay you on Tuesday and sh1t."

Aerosmith tickets!

 

[Changleen]

You love us, Smile!