Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Jun 17th, 2003, 11:10 AM       
Vinth, we already came to the conclusion that a gay gene isn't entirely responsible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
As you guys have already pointed out, if being gay depended upon reproduction, gay itself would have died out long ago.
Not entirely true; a lot depends on social conditions. The Ancient Greeks were big homos, but they still had wives and children.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
ranxer is probably a spambot
Old Jun 17th, 2003, 11:13 AM       
Quote:
And what can we say about a state that actively enforces it's sodomy laws?
a certain obsession? a fear?

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!
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Helm is probably a spambot
Old Jun 17th, 2003, 12:04 PM       
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
theapportioner is probably a spambot
Old Jun 17th, 2003, 12:50 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Ooner Ooner is offline
Member
Ooner's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Ooner is probably a spambot
Old Jun 17th, 2003, 02:19 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Very, very good point. Amniotic fluids have always been a big part of my wild guesses about it, but never seem to get mention in these debates.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Bennett Bennett is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: one shot, right between the eyes, just for old times sake
Bennett is probably a spambot
Old Jun 17th, 2003, 02:24 PM       
I don't know why Vince doesn't just settle this, and tell us exactly why he wants Kevin to suck his cock.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Helm is probably a spambot
Old Jun 17th, 2003, 02:40 PM       
Quote:
teratogenic influences
Isn't that what you'd call a natural error? Elaborate.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Jeanette X Jeanette X is offline
Queen of the Beasts
Jeanette X's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: in my burrow
Jeanette X is probably a spambot
Old Jun 17th, 2003, 02:41 PM       
[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?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Carnivore Carnivore is offline
Red, dead meat!
Carnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Carnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 17th, 2003, 03:01 PM       
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?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Helm is probably a spambot
Old Jun 17th, 2003, 03:09 PM       
Jeanette: As I said, that's way to roundabout for nature. At least as far as I can tell.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
theapportioner is probably a spambot
Old Jun 17th, 2003, 03:15 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Helm is probably a spambot
Old Jun 17th, 2003, 03:52 PM       
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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:55 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.