Originally posted by sithsaber408Hmm. You arrived at this conclusion how?
Um. I took basic biology. In high school. You should have to. Or you never got past middle school which is probably the case.
Genetics is FAR, FAR, FAR more complicated than simple herediatary traits. Are you THAT dense to believe that's all genetics entail? Your mom has, then you'll get it, right? NO.
Jesus.
Do you REALLY think you are the first one to think of the origins of homosexuality that way? No. You're not.
And it was proven to be wrong time and again.
This isn't just homosexuality. This is biology as a whole. That you would be SO uneducated to have such a simple child-like knowledge of biological genetics. For EVERY trait, it's FAR, FAR, FAR more complex than simple hereditary traits. It involves countless other biological factors....
😐
Please for the love of god, audit a high school level biology course. I would prefer college but you clearly wouldn't be able to handle that.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Is there some way to show that homosexuality is both a random genetic mutation AND passed through family genes?
It already has. However scientists cannot agree since so many genetic indicators point to homosexuality. Family traits. Genetic mutation. Genetic pathology.
Most scientists agree that it's combination of many factors rather than just one.
If it was just passed through family, it would be limited to particular subset of people.
THINK.
Originally posted by Lana
I'd like to know two things.- How exactly is homosexuality destructive?
- Where the hell did this "85% of Americans think it's wrong" claim come from? Back that one up, please.
Homosexuality is destructive to a man's legs.
I see so many gay men wear these really tight skinny jeans that are obviously thinning out their blood circulation.
Other than that....
Originally posted by Bardock42
...There is no conclusive proof.
Thank you.
You call the behavior normal, based on the fact that it feels good, happens in people, and is observed in the animal kingdom.
I would say that it's not normal or natural because it goes against what the intended biological function of male and female sex organs.
I would also say that it's not normal or natural in that the behavior itself doesn't create more people of the same behavior.
However every generation has always had more homosexuals.
We have 2 Possibilities here:
1.) They are influenced and changed by environmental factors in early childhood through adolescent development.
2.)They are born that way, through genetics. Either passed on through family or random mutations.
Now evidence:
For 1.) it would by a myriad of things, from abuse to neglect, to low self confidence, to embarrassment with the opposite sex, having gay influence through neighbors, parents, friends, etc at a young age, molestation and many other undetermined and unresearched Possibilities.
All of the above have already been shown to have an adverse effect on people.. influencing (or "changing" if you will) their thoughts, feelings, self-perception, goals and ideas, desires, actions and behaviors from they would have been if those elements had not been introduced.
It is my assertion that such things influence sexuality as well.
For 2.) The evidence that homosexuality occurs from family genes, creates a homosexual person that will not pass it on (more than likely, especially in today's modern culture where they won't be "forced" into pro-creation) but still carries through the family, or that it is a genetic mutation effecting random people, or some combination of both is.......
Survey says:
Originally posted by Bardock42
...There is no conclusive proof.
Yet for some unexplainable reason, it's taught as a truth. 😬
And even worse, if somebody pursues your line of thinking and cannot find sufficient evidence to prove your case, or presents other facts that show where homosexual behavior is in conflict with human beings natural sexuality, or if they say that while people do act and feel a certain way it doesn't mean that those actions or feelings are normal and should be promoted as such......
He's an evil, biggoted, jesus-freak.
And the argument is somehow made by you folks that I'm acting like a fool.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Thank you.You call the behavior normal, based on the fact that it feels good, happens in people, and is observed in the animal kingdom.
I would say that it's not normal or natural because it goes against what the intended biological function of male and female sex organs.
I would also say that it's not normal or natural in that the behavior itself doesn't create more people of the same behavior.
However every generation has always had more homosexuals.
We have 2 Possibilities here:
1.) They are influenced and changed by environmental factors in early childhood through adolescent development.
2.)They are born that way, through genetics. Either passed on through family or random mutations.
Now evidence:
For 1.) it would by a myriad of things, from abuse to neglect, to low self confidence, to embarrassment with the opposite sex, having gay influence through neighbors, parents, friends, etc at a young age, molestation and many other undetermined and unresearched Possibilities.
All of the above have already been shown to have an adverse effect on people.. influencing (or "changing" if you will) their thoughts, feelings, self-perception, goals and ideas, desires, actions and behaviors from they would have been if those elements had not been introduced.
It is my assertion that such things influence sexuality as well.
For 2.) The evidence that homosexuality occurs from family genes, creates a homosexual person that will not pass it on (more than likely, especially in today's modern culture where they won't be "forced" into pro-creation) but still carries through the family, or that it is a genetic mutation effecting random people, or some combination of both is.......
Survey says:
Yet for some unexplainable reason, it's taught as a truth. 😬
And even worse, if somebody pursues your line of thinking and cannot find sufficient evidence to prove your case, or presents other facts that show where homosexual behavior is in conflict with human beings natural sexuality, or if they say that while people do act and feel a certain way it doesn't mean that those actions or feelings are normal and should be promoted as such......
He's an evil, biggoted, jesus-freak.
And the argument is somehow made by you folks that I'm acting like a fool.
No, no, I don't call the behaviour normal. It is not normal. Natural...more likely. But that all doesn't matter. It does not harm anyone and it does happen. It should be taught in sex education class (without judgement to either side) and it should not be persecuted. That is all I say.
i love taking part in a debate where you're forced to say things like "i didnt say that", and and have to present proof by quoting yourself and are subsequently ignored as they continue putting the same words in your mouth that you never said or even suggested. i love debates where scientific evidence takes a back seat to the power of here-say and the gut feeling of someone from the interweb.
i love reading through paragraph after paragraph of nonsensical ranting just to find whatever already factually-stricken moot point is being repeated in spite of fact.
thanks 👆
Well so, SS has ignored all valid questions (Lana and Alliance) and only paid attention to Bardock. (not that Bardock's points aren't valid)
I call bullshit. All you're doing is parroting points that are logically incorrect, and then when the logic of your arguments is shattered, you repeat the exact same argument as if it's supposed to make a difference
Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
This is obviously going nowhere
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Most people get angry when incorrect beliefs/ideas are challanged and shown that the defense for them is folly.To the point that all they can say is : "It just IS natural! Damn you, you bigot, Jesus-freak, fool, etc..."
Well, some of us raised valid points which have not been addressed.
People who bring up points based on misconceptions/in face of fact are mocked.
I'm not reading through this circus of a thread, but as a scientist I am certainly qualified to address your poor perceptions of genetics.
If you have more questions or want to seriously talk things over in a non-hostile environment, pm me.
Many conditions are not determined through a single gene. (example, somehting as simple as skin tone is determined by eight genes, if my memory serves me). More appropriately genetic predispositions to say heart disease or cancer are not necessarily related to a specific genotype or a mutation. The individual has inherited a specific combination of factors that predispose them to a particular phenotype.
It is very unlikely that something as complex as homosexuality is determined by a single "gay gene." I have not read research that supports this. That being said, that also means that homosexuals aren't mutants, with a random single change in the genome results in homosexuality. The probability that homosexuality is a result of a mutation becomes absurd when you take into account all homosexual individuals (more accurately, people who are not exclusively heterosexual).
Therefore its absurd to try to take a stance about propagating a "gay gene" (not that your understanding of Mendelian inheritance isn't already flawed).
THis doesn't even begin to address the scope of issues you are targeting, but you can start by dropping this specific argument. I'd be bold to say you have an 8th grade level of understanding of basic genetics, which likely doesn't even come close to understanding the complexity of genetic links to homosexuality.
Originally posted by sithsaber408You call the behavior normal, based on the fact that it feels good, happens in people, and is observed in the animal kingdom.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
No. NOONE has stated this. You're ludicriously attempting to put words in our mouths...and failing at that.Noone brought up the validation of homosexuality because "it feels good"....YOU did....
[QUOTE=8333812]Originally posted by sithsaber408
[B]
I would say that it's not normal or natural because it goes against what the intended biological function of male and female sex organs.
So does masturbation. And oral sex. The natural intention of facial hair is to keep our face warm..but we shave.
You have a very skewed definition of "natural" Natural means something that occurs in nature naturally and is not born out of human social tenets. Homosexuality isn't born of social tenets. It's natural.
YOU view natural as something that you morally agree with. Which is just retarded...
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I would also say that it's not normal or natural in that the behavior itself doesn't create more people of the same behavior.
This makes absolutely no sense...
😐
Originally posted by sithsaber408
However every generation has always had more homosexuals.
The hell are you getting this from? Which generations have had more homosexuals than the next? The baby boomers? The 70s children? The WWII veterans?
😬
You're just pulling assumptions in the paltry guise of fact out of your ass.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
They are influenced and changed by environmental factors in early childhood through adolescent development.
Which are? What are the environmental factors you speak of? They would have to be common in ALL races, countries, and cultures.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
They are born that way, through genetics. Either passed on through family or random mutations.
AGAIN, you uneducated moron, biological genetics is FAR more complex than simple hereditary traits. You astound me. If it were THAT simple, we would have mapped the DNA human chain YEARS ago, we would have genetic manipulation techniques YEARS ago and and we would have already discovered a causal genetic link to homosexuality.
It's not that simple...
AGAIN. Take. A. Biology. Course. Now.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Now evidence:
No. OPINION. Evidence precludes you have facts, data or scientific analysis to back this up...
Which clearly below you don't...
Originally posted by sithsaber408
abuse
Proof? They have done this countless times. Scientists and sociologists alike have not found a single determining factor linking abuse whether sexual or physical to homosexuality...
Originally posted by sithsaber408
neglect, to low self confidence,
Proof? Neglect? What because I neglected my sister for about five years because I found her annoying, she's a lesbian? (She's not)
How the hell do you link neglect to the sexual attraction to one's own gender?
Low self-confidence? Gee, I guess nearly every teenager alive must be gay since puberty is practically synonmous with low self-confidence.
You're just amazingly stupid...
Originally posted by sithsaber408
to embarrassment with the opposite sex,
PROOF?
What? Peter Parkers of the world are gay? Please. What does this have to do with sexual attraction to one's own gender? NONE.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
having gay influence through neighbors, parents, friends, etc at a young age,
PROOF?
Influence? What "influence"? What? Gay men of the world actively hand out flyers to little boys to tell them to be gay?
You're astoundingly stupid....
Originally posted by sithsaber408
molestation
PROOF? What proof do you have that links molestation to homosexuality?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
and many other undetermined and unresearched Possibilities.
YES. They have been researched. COUNTLESS times. You REALLY think you're SUCH a genius that you're the FIRST to think these were the causes of homosexuality? NO. Studies have been done all over the world since the late 1700s.
And guess where they all landed? NO. NONE of these are directly or indirectly linked to homosexuality.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
All of the above have already been shown to have an adverse effect on people.. influencing (or "changing" if you will) their thoughts,
Proof? How? Where are you getting this from. What? Little Johnny's neglect or low self-esteem SOMEHOW made him predispositioned to be attracted other boys?
We don't know HOW but it MUST be this way...
You're astoundingly stupid...
Originally posted by sithsaber408
feelings, self-perception, goals and ideas, desires, actions and behaviors from they would have been if those elements had not been introduced.
How? Why? When? What? You're just pulling things out of your ass.
How do these environmental factors as you call it influence, change or alter these psychological elements?
You don't have a logical answer or evidence to back it since this is all just biased assumption and prejudice....
It is my assertion that such things influence sexuality as well.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
The evidence that homosexuality occurs from family genes, creates a homosexual person that will not pass it on (more than likely, especially in today's modern culture where they won't be "forced" into pro-creation) but still carries through the family, or that it is a genetic mutation effecting random people, or some combination of both is.......
You can't be older than fourteen. I know for a fact that they teach biology that goes beyond heridiatry traits in high school.
This is all just false. Not for just homosexuality but for GENETICS itself.
It's far, far, far, FAR more complicated than this simple little dream land you have above.
😬
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yet for some unexplainable reason, it's taught as a truth. 😬
Because it's based on science and the backing of BOTH the American Psychological Association and the Harvard Medical Board.
And nearly EVERY credible scientific facility on human psychology and human genetics....
Originally posted by sithsaber408
And even worse, if somebody pursues your line of thinking and cannot find sufficient evidence to prove your case,
You flippin' hypocrite....
You make outlandish claims which you dubb as "evidence" such as molestation makes people gay WITHOUT proof and you have the nerve to shake the finger at us?
😬
Originally posted by sithsaber408
it doesn't mean that those actions or feelings are normal and should be promoted as such......
What promotion? Are there advertisements on TV I'm not aware of.
Nobody's "promoting" homosexuality, dimwit. It just is. Just like the color of your skin....
Originally posted by sithsaber408
He's an evil, biggoted, jesus-freak.
Honey, Fred Phelps uses the EXACT same arguments you're making. And he does a MUCH better job at it....
Originally posted by sithsaber408
And the argument is somehow made by you folks that I'm acting like a fool.
ASTOUNDINGLY SO.
You are a fool. Period. Not for just your beliefs but because you can't grasp logic, answer questions or accept simple facts or definitions.
Look at everybody who thinks you're a fool. What? The world is crazy and you're not?
Please...
🤨
Originally posted by Alliance
Well, some of us raised valid points which have not been addressed.People who bring up points based on misconceptions/in face of fact are mocked.
I'm not reading through this circus of a thread, but as a scientist I am certainly qualified to address your poor perceptions of genetics.
If you have more questions or want to seriously talk things over in a non-hostile environment, pm me.
Many conditions are not determined through a single gene. (example, somehting as simple as skin tone is determined by eight genes, if my memory serves me). More appropriately genetic predispositions to say heart disease or cancer are not necessarily related to a specific genotype or a mutation. The individual has inherited a specific combination of factors that predispose them to a particular phenotype.
It is very unlikely that something as complex as homosexuality is determined by a single "gay gene." I have not read research that supports this. That being said, that also means that homosexuals aren't mutants, with a random single change in the genome results in homosexuality. The probability that homosexuality is a result of a mutation becomes absurd when you take into account all homosexual individuals (more accurately, people who are not exclusively heterosexual).
Therefore its absurd to try to take a stance about propagating a "gay gene" (not that your understanding of Mendelian inheritance isn't already flawed).
THis doesn't even begin to address the scope of issues you are targeting, but you can start by dropping this specific argument. I'd be bold to say you have an 8th grade level of understanding of basic genetics, which likely doesn't even come close to understanding the complexity of genetic links to homosexuality.
Thank god we have a scientist.
My head was gonna explode.
"But teh mother wasn't gay so teh son won't be!"
😘
The government doesn't have the power to tell anyone that they cannot be married in a religious manner, only legally.
Besides that, legal issues are usually what destroy marriages anyway. So who gives a crap if you're marriage isn't recognized by the government? Its not like you HAVE to register you're marriage with the government.
On topic, this is just some cooky super-left wing pr stunt, it will never be made into a law.
Originally posted by Grimm22
The government doesn't have the power to tell anyone that they cannot be married in a religious manner, only legally.Besides that, legal issues are usually what destroy marriages anyway. So who gives a crap if you're marriage isn't recognized by the government? Its not like you HAVE to register you're marriage with the government.
On topic, this is just some cooky super-left wing pr stunt, it will never be made into a law.
The point is to address misguided criticism of "gay marriages," to address people who say that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry same sex partners on the basis that they cannot create their own children through intercourse.
Originally posted by Grimm22
The government doesn't have the power to tell anyone that they cannot be married in a religious manner, only legally.Besides that, legal issues are usually what destroy marriages anyway. So who gives a crap if you're marriage isn't recognized by the government? Its not like you HAVE to register you're marriage with the government.
On topic, this is just some cooky super-left wing pr stunt, it will never be made into a law.
If that is true, why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry?
Originally posted by Lana
I'd like to know two things.- How exactly is homosexuality destructive?
- Where the hell did this "85% of Americans think it's wrong" claim come from? Back that one up, please.
Sithsaber, would you care to address these questions?
Originally posted by Grimm22
If anyone is going to decide that its the church of their religion, not the government
Not everyone is religious, you realize, correct?