|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jun 17th, 2003 03:52 PM | |||
| Helm | it's a bit unclear to me. Are you making some distinction between the whole process of birth, and a more specific part of said process? | ||
| Jun 17th, 2003 03:15 PM | |||
| theapportioner | Natural, sure, in that the embryo doesn't have any conscious experience of what nutrients etc. it's getting from the mother, but what is considered nature has taken a very genetic deterministic shift that has made us forget that an embryo's "natural environment" can be just as important, if not moreso. | ||
| Jun 17th, 2003 03:09 PM | |||
| Helm | Jeanette: As I said, that's way to roundabout for nature. At least as far as I can tell. | ||
| Jun 17th, 2003 03:01 PM | |||
| Carnivore | The cause(s) of homosexuality is(are) really irrelevant to the issue. The issue is whether homosexual acts should be criminal. I think the overwhelming majority, myself included, would say no. Does anyone think they should be illegal? Anyone willing to go on a little tirade about how homosexuality is a sin against God and they'll suffer eternally in the underworld? | ||
| Jun 17th, 2003 02:41 PM | |||
| Jeanette X |
[quote="Helm"]Burbank: Gay animals are probably natural errors. From an evolutionary standpoint, a gay animal makes no sense, since it fails to reproduce. Nature's way is pretty much straightforward, so even if being gay might have some minor evolutionary benefit, it can't overshadow the fact that the animal has been made useless. quote] Not being able/willing to pass on one's genes does not make one useless to a species. The drone worker bees are sterile, but they are essiential to the surivival of the entire hive. I have heard of gay animals raising babies of the species who have been orphaned. Perhaps therein lies their use? |
||
| Jun 17th, 2003 02:40 PM | |||
| Helm |
Quote:
|
||
| Jun 17th, 2003 02:24 PM | |||
| Bennett | I don't know why Vince doesn't just settle this, and tell us exactly why he wants Kevin to suck his cock. | ||
| Jun 17th, 2003 02:19 PM | |||
| Ooner |
Quote:
|
||
| Jun 17th, 2003 12:50 PM | |||
| theapportioner | One area that isn't discussed nearly enough, masked certainly by the false nature (genetic) vs. nurture (social environment) dichotomy, is what goes on during embryonic and fetal development. A certain array of genes may predispose one towards homosexuality, but the embryonic environment, teratogenic influences, I bet plays a big role as well. | ||
| Jun 17th, 2003 12:04 PM | |||
| Helm | Burbank: Gay animals are probably natural errors. From an evolutionary standpoint, a gay animal makes no sense, since it fails to reproduce. Nature's way is pretty much straightforward, so even if being gay might have some minor evolutionary benefit, it can't overshadow the fact that the animal has been made useless. Bisexuality is another issue, but seeing how very few animals have sex just to enjoy themselves, such a trait is -again from an evolutionary standpoint- pretty much useless. I believe most gay people are such because of social and psychological issues, but in the case when they're not, it's usually an issue of hormone glans defectivity. It can be argued that humans are naturally bisexual, but again I cannot see why nature would make them in such a way. | ||
| Jun 17th, 2003 11:13 AM | |||
| ranxer |
Quote:
 and gay has been shown in experiments to increase as population density increases.. sounds like a form of population control to me. sheesh, why can't people do what they want in thier own homes?! i find it strange that the strongest anti-gay folks are religious.. why cant they let god sort it out like thier supposed to? why must the bible thumpers try to impose thier views on others (which is against gods will from what i've read) let those who have no sin cast the first stone! |
||
| Jun 17th, 2003 11:10 AM | |||
| AChimp |
Vinth, we already came to the conclusion that a gay gene isn't entirely responsible. Quote:
|
||
| Jun 17th, 2003 11:09 AM | |||
| Vibecrewangel |
Gay Then explain to me why I have been attracted to women longer than men? It certainly wasn't a learned behavior. |
||
| Jun 17th, 2003 11:09 AM | |||
| mburbank |
"scientist have debunked the "born gay" myth" Vinth Clambake Listen, I don't want to bother you, I know your really, really busy and all, and I hope this doesn't scare you away, but you wouldn't care to, you know, back that up at all? I'd find your sources for you, but with so many of the brighter Newsfilter folks who've showed up to see where I came from I just don't have the time to do your oleg work for you. Oh, geeze. Oh, come on, Vinth. Stop. Stop crying. I didn't mean to scare you. Never mind, never mind, I'm sure your right. It was 'debunked'. Things that haven't been proven or claimed to be proven one way or another get 'debunked' all the time. Here, have a hanky. |
||
| Jun 17th, 2003 11:04 AM | |||
| VinceZeb | The Texas sodomy case is wrong. But lets face facts here, being gay is not genetic. Now, I know what I am going to say is going to have everyone going "WHERE YOUR SORCES, VINTHH!" but scientist have debunked the "born gay" myth. And it isn't just "religious" scientist either. There have been a few atheist ones as well that say it is bunk science. | ||
| Jun 17th, 2003 10:54 AM | |||
| mburbank |
See? I told you. Reasonable discussions. Has anyone mentioned Gay animals? I mean scientiffically, not just for the purposes of making folks giggle. I know there are gay geese and gay chimpanzees. Would one supppose this is genetic, or some sort of animal 'lifestyle choice'? And are Gay geese allowed to assfuck in texas? And what can we say about a state that actively enforces it's sodomy laws? I'm reminded of the Florida (was it Florida?) cops who arrested aul 'pee-wee' reubens for two acts of public masturbation, which means they watched him the first time and then hung around hoping to watch again. What is it with states governed by Bushes? |
||
| Jun 17th, 2003 06:36 AM | |||
| Raven | It is dependant upon the type of recessive gene. If it would in fact prevent or hinder the chance of reproduction in some form, than the probability of the gene disappearing or simply diminishing is fastly increased. But that is within the realms of Darwin and natural selection. | ||
| Jun 17th, 2003 06:22 AM | |||
| Ooner |
Quote:
Blue, Green or Hazel Eyes Color Blindness Blonde or Red Hair ... Homosexuality? |
||
| Jun 17th, 2003 06:11 AM | |||
| Ooner |
Quote:
So no, not defective. Still fully functional as people, just with minor different characteristics. |
||
| Jun 17th, 2003 06:06 AM | |||
| Ooner |
Quote:
Or maybe I'm one of those flaming faggots who just thinks they're butch. .. Oh god, I hope I'm not one of those flaming faggots who think they're butch. |
||
| Jun 17th, 2003 01:11 AM | |||
| Preechr |
The funny part about this thing is that to accept that GAY might be, in fact, genetic would be to realize that the best thing to do, if one's goal were to ERADICATE gay, would be to simply let it eliminate itself through natural selection. As you guys have already pointed out, if being gay depended upon reproduction, gay itself would have died out long ago. The obvious contradiction here being that the religious right is the group that supports THEIR loving, caring, moral God that hates gays, but Her followers hating on gays is what societally forces the gays to hide their proclivity and unwillingly procreate "unnaturally" furthering the imposition of gay upon moral, God-fearing society. Either that, or gays are created through some non-genetic, supernatural phenomenon designed to eternally aggravate moral folk... Long story short, I chalk the whole controversy up to God likes to fuck with people. |
||
| Jun 17th, 2003 12:48 AM | |||
| Raven | Of course. A "gay" gene would only cause you to react to same sex pheromones in the way most would react to opposite sex pheromones, this is simple a hypothesis don't assume it as fact. As such human beings generally cover up pheromones with deoderants and such. Thus the pheromones would have no effect or a lessened effect. Thus requiring a psycological mindset towards such activities. | ||
| Jun 17th, 2003 12:45 AM | |||
| Burned In Effigy | This might sound mean, but being gay could be simply being defective. With that said, that doesn't mean they should be treated any different than the "norm". | ||
| Jun 17th, 2003 12:44 AM | |||
| AChimp | I seem to recall reading some stuff about a "gay gene," except having it only increases the probability that you might be gay. There's a whole bunch of social and psychological reasons behind it as well, from what I've read. | ||
| Jun 17th, 2003 12:40 AM | |||
| Raven |
"My knowledge of genetics is a bit rusty (I haven't had a biology class in four years) but even if it was a recessive gene it would eventualy be wiped out or at least decrease in instance. My point was that it isn't a genetic thing." Not for humans. Since Humans are allowed to breed even with recessive genes that would prevent them from doing so. And there is no proof that it is or is not a genetic thing. Its all really just speculation as to what causes it. |
||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||
