Bearsy Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 We need the olympics go ahead cos Putin said the law won't apply to olympics and our athletes will be legally allowed to go round Russian schools promoting gay cultures. We don't want to miss this opportunity! Hearts + minds people, that is where the revolution will start. We should enter Fry in snowboard or something so he can get in on ground level with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 We should enter Fry in snowboard or something so he can get in on ground level with this. I don't know why he's bothered about the anti gay Olympics anyway, its not like he'd get a medal. Except sumo or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 I don't know why he's bothered about the anti gay Olympics anyway, its not like he'd get a medal. Except sumo or something. If there was a medal for smugness, he'd walk it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 I'm not homophobic; I have nothing against the gays. I just believe they have a disorder of some sort - whether that is genetic or of the brain is questionable and, sadly, proper funding into research to establish the reasons for it or potential cures will never be given or raised now that society has become so tolerant of them and deemed them 'normal'. I'm not saying they are evil, should be beaten, or exterminated FFS. Oh, so gay people are just mentally ill, not evil. That's fine then. I know you're a cabbie Essruu, but ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Diamond Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 I find myself wondering why these groups are so anti-Russia when it comes to the Winter Olympics, but what about the World Championships that are taking place right now in the capital? I've heard absolutely nothing so far against it, what's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 Oh, so gay people are just mentally ill, not evil. That's fine then. I know you're a cabbie Essruu, but ffs. What does being a cabbie have to so with anything chunk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 I find myself wondering why these groups are so anti-Russia when it comes to the Winter Olympics, but what about the World Championships that are taking place right now in the capital? I've heard absolutely nothing so far against it, what's the difference? I expect the Olympic values have something to do with it. Not that I agree with Fry's call for a boycott anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 What does being a cabbie have to so with anything chunk? Just playing on stereotypes my preened chum. How's the whippet? Xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Diamond Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 I expect the Olympic values have something to do with it. Not that I agree with Fry's call for a boycott anyway. So the World Championships have different values to the Olympics? Olympians can't be exposed to an anti-gay culture, but a World Championship competitor can? Surely such values should transcend sport, no matter what competition? Is it not okay for Zidane to headbutt a player in a World Cup final, but perfectly acceptable in League Two? Of course not. Very bizarre. I work for England's Commonwealth Games team. Best check if Stephen, who tweeted his support for us last month, is planning on overlooking any anti-gay sentiment in Glasgow next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essruu Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 Oh, so gay people are just mentally ill, not evil. That's fine then. I know you're a cabbie Essruu, but ffs. I didn't say it was definitively mental illness; so, I don't know why you picked out that particular possible theory to be my explicit belief. It could be like a mental illness or a brain chemical imbalance; but, it could just as easily be a genetic defect. Everyone has gotten so liberal, overly tolerant and accepting of the gays as being 'normal' these days, that there is unlikely to ever be proper research into the cause or, indeed, a cure. We have different beliefs. Accept it. Everyone has gotten so tolerant with the gays and their different sexual activities; yet, are so quick to not accept my different view and beliefs - how very intolerant and hypocritical of you liberal nancies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 I didn't say it was definitively mental illness; so, I don't know why you picked out that particular possible theory to be my explicit belief. It could be like a mental illness or a brain chemical imbalance; but, it could just as easily be a genetic defect. Everyone has gotten so liberal, overly tolerant and accepting of the gays as being 'normal' these days, that there is unlikely to ever be proper research into the cause or, indeed, a cure. We have different beliefs. Accept it. Everyone has gotten so tolerant with the gays and their different sexual activities; yet, are so quick to not accept my different view and beliefs - how very intolerant and hypocritical of you liberal nancies. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. You are wrong, and offensive on so many levels. Homosexuality exists in organisms just about everywhere that you look for it, and it is perfectly normal and natural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 If the 'closet gays are the most overtly homophobic' theory is true then Essruu f*cking loves a bit of cock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 I didn't say it was definitively mental illness; so, I don't know why you picked out that particular possible theory to be my explicit belief. It could be like a mental illness or a brain chemical imbalance; but, it could just as easily be a genetic defect. Everyone has gotten so liberal, overly tolerant and accepting of the gays as being 'normal' these days, that there is unlikely to ever be proper research into the cause or, indeed, a cure. We have different beliefs. Accept it. Everyone has gotten so tolerant with the gays and their different sexual activities; yet, are so quick to not accept my different view and beliefs - how very intolerant and hypocritical of you liberal nancies. Like SaintAndy said, homosexuality is a practice that has been observed in countless species and is perfectly natural. Don't let your own prejudices get in the way of actual facts. Always amazes me how people with beliefs like yours (and I completely respect your right to have them) are so quick to point the finger at the "liberals". Would you rather the death penalty were reinstated for homosexuality or shall we just carry on being as tolerant as we can to minority groups? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essruu Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 You are entitled to your own beliefs, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. You are wrong, and offensive on so many levels. Homosexuality exists in organisms just about everywhere that you look for it, and it is perfectly normal and natural. I said they were my beliefs, not facts; however, without proper research you can't properly disprove my beliefs - research that will, sadly never happen because of where we find ourselves in this liberal and overly tolerant world today. It seems that, unlike you, I don't go looking for homosexuality everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 Shut it Mikey. Essruu's repressive gayness is V Sexy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 Shut it Mikey. Essruu's repressive gayness is V Sexy. He bites and grabs hold of your hair, you wouldn't like it. Bear would be fine though coz Ess has lots of loose change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 (edited) I said they were my beliefs, not facts; however, without proper research you can't properly disprove my beliefs - research that will, sadly never happen because of where we find ourselves in this liberal and overly tolerant world today. It seems that, unlike you, I don't go looking for homosexuality everywhere. I dislike Liberals massively, bleeding hearts is not my thing, but the ignorance displayed by you is beyond. I can honestly say you are a bellend and no research is needed for that. Edited 12 August, 2013 by Barry Sanchez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 You are entitled to your own beliefs, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. You are wrong, and offensive on so many levels. Homosexuality exists in organisms just about everywhere that you look for it, and it is perfectly normal and natural. If it was normal and natural why can't homosexuals reproduce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 If it was normal and natural why can't homosexuals reproduce? Many straight people can not reproduce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 Many straight people can not reproduce. That's because of abnormalities too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 If it was normal and natural why can't homosexuals reproduce? This one is so simple....our emotions for others and also 'pleasure' from sex, are typical secondary sexual characteristics we have evolved through the the anisogamy we exhibit... In effect the drive is not just about reproduction, but about ensuring our offspring survive to pass on our genes again... And from a evoltionary perspective, at some point offspring without two or more adults were less 'fit' in survival terms... So there would have been an evolutionary selective pressure for those you exhibited a desire to stick around... Emotional connects, pleasure from sex etc evolved... And like all evolved genetic behavioural characteristics, many have additional consequences that are not associated with the original selective pressures... The odds of 1 in 10 being gay is total Ballacks - the 1 in 10 is have experienced a homosexual event - as many young folk do when confused and hormonal in adolescence.... But the feck wit ignorant IRressuss or whatever the feck his name is, is factually WRONG. Homosexuality is just as normal as say and emotional love between man and women... Because both only exist because the was an evolutionary advantage to evolve love and pleasure.... In some this has become stronger genetically than reproduction, and as such reproduction is not the 'normal driver' erresuuuyu you are talking a load of crap... I know this as I have a 1st class honours in evolutionary biology and the impact of anisogamy on the evolution of secondary sexual characteristics and behaviours is pretty standard stuff if you bothered to get a fricken education and not simply accept your own ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 This one is so simple....our emotions for others and also 'pleasure' from sex, are typical secondary sexual characteristics we have evolved through the the anisogamy we exhibit... In effect the drive is not just about reproduction, but about ensuring our offspring survive to pass on our genes again... And from a evoltionary perspective, at some point offspring without two or more adults were less 'fit' in survival terms... So there would have been an evolutionary selective pressure for those you exhibited a desire to stick around... Emotional connects, pleasure from sex etc evolved... And like all evolved genetic behavioural characteristics, many have additional consequences that are not associated with the original selective pressures... The odds of 1 in 10 being gay is total Ballacks - the 1 in 10 is have experienced a homosexual event - as many young folk do when confused and hormonal in adolescence.... But the feck wit ignorant IRressuss or whatever the feck his name is, is factually WRONG. Homosexuality is just as normal as say and emotional love between man and women... Because both only exist because the was an evolutionary advantage to evolve love and pleasure.... In some this has become stronger genetically than reproduction, and as such reproduction is not the 'normal driver' erresuuuyu you are talking a load of crap... I know this as I have a 1st class honours in evolutionary biology and the impact of anisogamy on the evolution of secondary sexual characteristics and behaviours is pretty standard stuff if you bothered to get a fricken education and not simply accept your own ignorance. So if everyone was gay the human race would die out but at least everyone would have fun doing it, hey Francis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 So if everyone was gay the human race would die out but at least everyone would have fun doing it, hey Francis. Indeed... The most popular misconception about natural selection is that the payment believes its 'for the good of the species' - it's not. - natural selection acts as the level of ten individual. if as a consequence of some selective pressure a side effect of a gene being dominant was a desire for man love, and man love alone, we could as a species die out... Genes are NOT altruistic. So you may laugh and take the **** Turks but you are simply factually wrong in doing so. Like I said , go read up on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 This one is so simple....our emotions for others and also 'pleasure' from sex, are typical secondary sexual characteristics we have evolved through the the anisogamy we exhibit... In effect the drive is not just about reproduction, but about ensuring our offspring survive to pass on our genes again... And from a evoltionary perspective, at some point offspring without two or more adults were less 'fit' in survival terms... So there would have been an evolutionary selective pressure for those you exhibited a desire to stick around... Emotional connects, pleasure from sex etc evolved... And like all evolved genetic behavioural characteristics, many have additional consequences that are not associated with the original selective pressures... The odds of 1 in 10 being gay is total Ballacks - the 1 in 10 is have experienced a homosexual event - as many young folk do when confused and hormonal in adolescence.... But the feck wit ignorant IRressuss or whatever the feck his name is, is factually WRONG. Homosexuality is just as normal as say and emotional love between man and women... Because both only exist because the was an evolutionary advantage to evolve love and pleasure.... In some this has become stronger genetically than reproduction, and as such reproduction is not the 'normal driver' erresuuuyu you are talking a load of crap... I know this as I have a 1st class honours in evolutionary biology and the impact of anisogamy on the evolution of secondary sexual characteristics and behaviours is pretty standard stuff if you bothered to get a fricken education and not simply accept your own ignorance. Thats ******** FC. You've made a simple error of conflating motivation for parents to stick around and help raise their offspring and attributed that to homosexuality. They arent linked. The most probable explanation is that patterns of exposure of the embryo in the womb to maternal levels of testosterone seems to affect brain development, particularly the amygdala. There is lots of research on this, here is one example. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm The point is not whether something is 'normal' its whether or not society is accepting of difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 The only consistent thing about discussions on homosexuality is that it becomes very apparent that homophobes are always the ones who seem to spend a lot of time thinking about where other men are sticking their junk and get very worked up about it. i always wonder why.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 Thats ******** FC. You've made a simple error of conflating motivation for parents to stick around and help raise their offspring and attributed that to homosexuality. They arent linked. The most probable explanation is that patterns of exposure of the embryo in the womb to maternal levels of testosterone seems to affect brain development, particularly the amygdala. There is lots of research on this, here is one example. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm The point is not whether something is 'normal' its whether or not society is accepting of difference. Firstly I did not, I stated that the selective pressure for parents to stick around led to the evolution of secondary sexual characteristics such as pleasure from sex and emotional bonding. In most individuals these two 'needs' have become greater than the biological or natural 'need, for reproduction. Or do you only ever have sex when you want to reproduce ? ...and you are forgetting that these physiological effects that can occur 'naturally' such as those mentioned in those studies are only possible because these hormonal shifts are part of the natural variation in the physiology during gestation. Any behaviour we exhibit as humans is normal- because we are physiologically capable of exhibiting it. It is society, through various mechanisms be they religious doctrine, politically motivated or simply social 'convention' that lead to suggesting things are not natural or taboo. In some cases there is a genuine rational reason for such determination - behaviours such as murder or other crimes area naturally not tolerated, but only in those societies that remain ignorant is there a fear of homosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 Indeed... The most popular misconception about natural selection is that the payment believes its 'for the good of the species' - it's not. - natural selection acts as the level of ten individual. if as a consequence of some selective pressure a side effect of a gene being dominant was a desire for man love' date=' and man love alone, we could as a species die out... Genes are NOT altruistic. So you may laugh and take the **** Turks but you are simply factually wrong in doing so. Like I said , go read up on it.[/quote'] Wether you like it or not the main aim or sex is to reproduce, a couple of the same sex can't do it. Therefore its not natural and human imperfection has lead to this unnatural behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 Wether you like it or not the main aim or sex is to reproduce, a couple of the same sex can't do it. Therefore its not natural and human imperfection has lead to this unnatural behaviour. So anytime anyone has sex without the intention of reproducing is displaying weird and unatural behaviour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 "Normal" isn't exactly a quantifiable term is it? However, I'd say that homosexuality is a common enough trait that it seems to be within the boundaries I'd accept as normal. Yes, you can say it's not true of most people, so it's not "the norm", but how far do you take that? We can all pick out a trait about ourselves that would exclude us from being normal if you follow that rule. Do we start saying there's something wrong with bald people and society's being too liberal in accepting them? It seems to be some sort of genetic defect doesn't it? Why do we treat them like they're normal? The answer is because they are normal and the fact that they are different in that way really shouldn't be a problem for anybody. If you do have a problem with it, the problem is with you, not with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 So anytime anyone has sex without the intention of reproducing is displaying weird and unatural behaviour? Why do you think contraception was invented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 "Normal" isn't exactly a quantifiable term is it? However, I'd say that homosexuality is a common enough trait that it seems to be within the boundaries I'd accept as normal. Yes, you can say it's not true of most people, so it's not "the norm", but how far do you take that? We can all pick out a trait about ourselves that would exclude us from being normal if you follow that rule. Do we start saying there's something wrong with bald people and society's being too liberal in accepting them? It seems to be some sort of genetic defect doesn't it? Why do we treat them like they're normal? The answer is because they are normal and the fact that they are different in that way really shouldn't be a problem for anybody. If you do have a problem with it, the problem is with you, not with them. So you're saying bald people have a genetic defect and comparing that with gays, imply homosexuality is a genetic defect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 So you're saying bald people have a genetic defect and comparing that with gays, imply homosexuality is a genetic defect? Just genetic make-up, not a defect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 Just genetic make-up, not a defect. So being bald is a genetic defect but being gay is genetic make up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 So being bald is a genetic defect but being gay is genetic make up? No, both genetic make-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 No, both genetic make-up. That's not what Norway saint said, he said being bald appears to be a genetic defect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essruu Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 Oh, so gay people are just mentally ill, not evil. That's fine then. I know you're a cabbie Essruu, but ffs. What does being a cabbie have to so with anything chunk? Don't rise to it, Turkish; he's just a judgemental and small-minded bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 So you're saying bald people have a genetic defect and comparing that with gays, imply homosexuality is a genetic defect? In the same way that you can call any of the ways in which we all differ from an over-all genetic norm a defect, be it a tendency towards a bad back (normal), having a faster or slower metabolism (normal), having a second toe longer than your big toe (normal) or many other "defects" that separate us from a theoretical norm, but still leave us within the bounds of normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 That's not what Norway saint said, he said being bald appears to be a genetic defect. Yea I know, don't think defect is the right word to describe baldness, a fair proportion of men will go bald during their lifetime just like there are a fair amount of gay people in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 Don't rise to it, Turkish; he's just a judgemental and small-minded bigot. He's not being bigoted mate, he's not saying there is anything evil about being a cabbie, just that they are so widely accepted now that no cure will ever be found for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 (edited) It seems perfectly obvious to me that seen from a 'survival of the species' viewpoint most complex multicellular living organisms are 'designed' to engage in male/female sexual reproduction in order to ensure the propagation and evolution of the species. So from that strictly scientific perspective claiming that the observed homosexuality we see in all Human society is a 'unnatural' behavior is not a inherently unreasonable one. However the question of Human sexual behavior and the relationships we form is obviously a enormously complex subject and not merely a matter of the mechanics of sexual reproduction. Given the often problematic nature of the homosexual lifestyle (more so in the past than now one suspects) I find it hard to believe that many people would really choose to be 'gay' as if that were some desirable life option open to them. Therefore I suspect that there must be at least some genetic component in 'LGBT' behavior. So a flaw in our genome then, or just a naturally occurring variable like red hair or left handedness - make your own mind up. It strikes me that rather than seeking to place people into 'gay' or 'straight' boxes as if they must be one thing or the other, we would do well to question whether the division between Homosexuality and Heterosexually is quite as categorical as some assume. Scientific research shows that Bisexuality may in fact be a more widespread human (and animal) behavior than is generally assumed. For instance, a study by the well respected Kinsey Institute concluded that some 37% of the male population had engaged in both Homosexual and Heterosexual activity at some point during their lifetime. Given the understandable reluctance of many to admit such a thing (even in a anonymous scientific study) it seems safe to conclude that that is probably a significant underestimation of the true situation. In the final analysis perhaps people are just naturally attracted to attractive people, regardless of age, class or even gender. Edited 11 August, 2013 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 Its interesting to note that no one is able to answer if its perfectly natural then why can't two homosexuals reproduce too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 Its interesting to note that no one is able to answer if its perfectly natural then why can't two homosexuals reproduce too. That's an odd sentence, your implication there seems to be that homosexuality is not natural, does that mean you believe it's man-made? Are homosexual animals man-made as well? Or are you saying that anything that's different from the norm isn't a product of nature? Nature creates dead-ends in reproduction all the time, it's still nature. What do you think "natural" means Turkish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 Norway, will you fuck off being all right and being right about stuff. I much prefer it when you are a complete cock. This is freaking me out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 He's not being bigoted mate, he's not saying there is anything evil about being a cabbie, just that they are so widely accepted now that no cure will ever be found for them. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 I have nothing against gays, why should I . They're just like anyone else. Not everybody fancies the same types. I think mrs duck is hot, some of you may think she's a *****r. Some blokes fancy blokes, some fancy fat birds, some fancy older ones. The way I have always looked at it, the more gays there are the less competition for the ladies (especially as a lot of them are better looking than me). I do however, have something against fry. He's about as funny as a dose of the clap and I dont buy this bumbling upper class John le messieur act. He says take the games to Utah. What if someone writes a letter about Guantanamo, where to next. We'll end up having all sporting events in Luxembourg or some other non offensive country. I thought about this argument, it doesn't work. Yes, some blokes fancy fat birds, old birds, blonde birds, brunette birds, blokes, hairy blokes, fat blokes etc. But where do you stop at that list? Do you add on "young girls, young boys, animals"? Therefore, whilst it's an interesting way of looking at it, it doesn't work on that level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 Bandying "natural" around as some sort of predicate is sloppy and simple-minded. You might as well say "evil" or "sinful". It's pre-enlightenment nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 If it was normal and natural why can't homosexuals reproduce? It's normal and natural because it occurs everywhere down to natural, and so normal means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 I said they were my beliefs, not facts; however, without proper research you can't properly disprove my beliefs - research that will, sadly never happen because of where we find ourselves in this liberal and overly tolerant world today. It seems that, unlike you, I don't go looking for homosexuality everywhere. There is plenty of research and it points to it being fundamentally biologically based, just skin colour. So yes, there is plenty of evidence to disprove you. As for the second part of your answer, it's frankly bizarre! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 (edited) It seems perfectly obvious to me that seen from a 'survival of the species' viewpoint most complex multicellular living organisms are 'designed' to engage in male/female sexual reproduction in order to ensure the propagation and evolution of the species. So from that strictly scientific perspective claiming that the observed homosexuality we see in all Human society is a 'unnatural' behavior is not a inherently unreasonable one. However the question of Human sexual behavior and the relationships we form is obviously a enormously complex subject and not merely a matter of the mechanics of sexual reproduction. Given the often problematic nature of the homosexual lifestyle (more so in the past than now one suspects) I find it hard to believe that many people would really choose to be 'gay' as if that were some desirable life option open to them. Therefore I suspect that there must be at least some genetic component in 'LGBT' behavior. So a flaw in our genome then, or just a naturally occurring variable like red hair or left handedness - make your own mind up. It strikes me that rather than seeking to place people into 'gay' or 'straight' boxes as if they must be one thing or the other, we would do well to question whether the division between Homosexuality and Heterosexually is quite as categorical as some assume. Scientific research shows that Bisexuality may in fact be a more widespread human (and animal) behavior than is generally assumed. For instance, a study by the well respected Kinsey Institute concluded that some 37% of the male population had engaged in both Homosexual and Heterosexual activity at some point during their lifetime. Given the understandable reluctance of many to admit such a thing (even in a anonymous scientific study) it seems safe to conclude that that is probably a significant underestimation of the true situation. In the final analysis perhaps people are just naturally attracted to attractive people, regardless of age, class or even gender. Quick note on evolution. Most evidence points that it is not species or group based, but instead gene based. As in each gene's 'aim' (and I say aim in a very loose way as it isn't a conscious one) is to multiply itself as much as possible. And there are plenty of ways to multiply your genome outside of reproduction - for example, it is very common in birds for many to stay behind for some time to help bring up relations in conjunction with their families and so hence multiplication of the genes they share with them. I think all those that are saying that reproduction is the only way should bear that in mind. Edited 11 August, 2013 by Saintandy666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 11 August, 2013 Share Posted 11 August, 2013 So the gays should help to look after their sibling's children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now