BETTYBOO68 Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Posted by Evil Goblin How do you know I'm not!? Seriously, I am just incompetent on the keyboard at this time of night, having been up since 3 am. And yes, YOUR ignorance is amazing! Posted by bettyboo68 I had a feeling that you may well be an comedian as comedians apparently can stay up days on end writing new jokes and material! if having an opinion and been open minded and accepting in this day and age is classed as ignorance well then i take that as a compliment! i would suggest though you should have an early night tonight or you will get writers block!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 5, 2009 Author Share Posted April 5, 2009 If is isn't governed by genes then it's environmentally determined and should be conditioned out of the population as an aberrant bahaviour. However, the overwhelming evidence is that it is genetically determined (which is why the homosexual community carries on about it being not a choice but the way you are born). The determination is at the foetal stage (6 and 12 weeks, roughly) - but if you are even half as well educated as you seem to lay claim to being, you should know all this. And why am I evil for stating the truth? You'll notice I don't advocate discrimination against homosexuals or that they should be persecuted. That would be as unreasonable as punishing a cat for chasing birds. There is no overwhelming evidence at all. There have been studies but not enough and they have been based heterosexist preconceptions of sexuality. And an environmentally or socially determined cause for sexuality can not simply be conditioned out of the population. The reason why the homosexual community 'carries on' about it being about the genetic predisposition is partly because the idea was quickly snapped at by the community because it allowed homosexuals to justify their existence and say "it's not my fault" to heterosexuals. And it has has been reinforced by the claims that many gay people have always felt different from a young age. In any case, your line of thinking points to some merit that social engineering could bring by eradicating homosexuality. Though, of course, I am as biased on the matter as you, I think society would lose quite a lot if it were ever possible to eliminate homosexuality in humans. At its most simplest there would be a loss of diversity in sexuality. In any case, though you may wish to explain how you do not think homosexual people should be marginalised, discriminated, or berated, your attitudes to homosexuality are such to make you a homophobe and in a sense a bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 I've merely pointed out that homosexuality is biologically deviant and as such should be engineered away in due course. If it " should be engineered away " then by your own argument it is something which occurs naturally but which you would seek to change via your unnatural scientific intervention. So your argument is fundamentally and logically flawed. It would be no more deviant than, say, hair color. By your science. But there is no evidence that it is evolutionarily problematic. The species is not going to suffer from it. So your argument has nothing to do with biology and your definition of deviance is a limited and subjective POV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Max - I quite agree, there should not be a problem. I've merely pointed out that homosexuality is biologically deviant and as such should be engineered away in due course. Where have I advocated that homsexuals should be discriminated against, marginalised or berated? You are simply indulging in ignorant, knee-jerk reactions without actually thinking about what has been said. BTW, where is your justification for "a section of society which is probably more productive, artistic and tolerant than any other". Evil Goblin - what is your point - homosexuality is a well observed behaviour throughout the natural world - it is not rare in some respects - homosexual behaviour exists in nearly all mammals. There is another way of looking at it - homosexuality does only manefest itself in a small percentage of the population. If that is what you mean as deviant well it is an extreme word to use - why not just use rare which doesn't have the moral resonances. Just because something is rare (deviant/abnormal in your phraseology) is no reason to presume that it will or should die out. What's your point - your language is bombastic and agressive - redheads are also rare - they may be just as productive, artistic and tolerant as homosexuals - even if they are not that is no reason to write posts about the biological deviance of red hair and it being engineered out of existence. I couldn't agree more with what Max Power posted - what is this hang up about homosexuality - if you listened to the more rabid sections of this forum you'd think they were responsible for armageddon - I see no justification for that what so ever - live and let live is what I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 What would happen if everyone was gay? Would it make a difference? Would it upset the church? Would the population reduce? ps...I've had a good night out with friends and I'll probably regret what I've said in the morning, but it was the first thing I saw on the forum... Night all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorley Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 What would happen if everyone was gay? Would it make a difference? Would it upset the church? Would the population reduce? ps...I've had a good night out with friends and I'll probably regret what I've said in the morning, but it was the first thing I saw on the forum... Night all well firstly if man didn't mate with woman they're would be no more babies church would be pee'd off no doubt but they always are and yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yootalkin2me Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 What would happen if everyone was gay? Would it make a difference? Would it upset the church? Would the population reduce? ps...I've had a good night out with friends and I'll probably regret what I've said in the morning, but it was the first thing I saw on the forum... Night all well firstly if man didn't mate with woman they're would be no more babies church would be pee'd off no doubt but they always are and yes. Where've you been for the last thirty years rip van winkle...ever heard of test tube babies, artificial insemination, IVF........................ On another note: You haven't lived if you've not been with a couple of south american she-males Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 ever heard of test tube babies, artificial insemination, IVF........................ Artificial insemination? I think its a proven medical fact that you can stick any amount of sp**k up someones arse but its never going to grow a baby .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yootalkin2me Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 ever heard of test tube babies, artificial insemination, IVF........................ Artificial insemination? I think its a proven medical fact that you can stick any amount of sp**k up someones arse but its never going to grow a baby .... The following is for your perusal knobhead...... Artificial insemination (AI) is the process by which sperm is placed into the reproductive tract of a female for the purpose of impregnating the female by using means other than sexual intercourse. In humans, it is used as assisted reproductive technology, primarily to treat infertility but is also increasingly used to enable women without a male partner (i.e., single women and lesbians) to produce children by using sperm provided by a sperm donor. The woman is the gestational and genetic mother of the child produced, and the sperm donor is the genetic or biological father of the child. Specifically, freshly ejaculated sperm, or sperm which has been frozen and thawed, is placed in the cervix (intracervical insemination) (ICI)) or in the female's uterus (intrauterine insemination) (IUI) by artificial means. Modern techniques for human artificial insemination were first developed for the dairy cattle industry to allow many cows to be impregnated with the sperm of a bull with traits for improved milk production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 ever heard of test tube babies, artificial insemination, IVF........................ Artificial insemination? I think its a proven medical fact that you can stick any amount of sp**k up someones arse but its never going to grow a baby .... The following is for your perusal knobhead...... You're the knobhead pal ... take a chill pill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 On another note: You haven't lived if you've not been with a couple of south american she-males She-males? Much to be avoided, especially on the Avenida Atlântica and mostly around the (in)famous ‘HELP’ disco, they’re called ‘mulheres do elefante’ (elephant women) by the Carioca, and anyone who has spent any time there. The reason? Like an elephant they have a ‘trunk in front’! Interesting country, Brazil, Amongst many reasons it was the first place that I actually saw a traveling brothel. It was based on an old bus as most are. And no, I didn’t make use of it, or any of the ‘mulheres do elefante’ either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 She-males? Much to be avoided, especially on the Avenida Atlântica and mostly around the (in)famous ‘HELP’ disco, they’re called ‘mulheres do elefante’ (elephant women) by the Carioca, and anyone who has spent any time there. The reason? Like an elephant they have a ‘trunk in front’! Interesting country, Brazil, Amongst many reasons it was the first place that I actually saw a traveling brothel. It was based on an old bus as most are. And no, I didn’t make use of it, or any of the ‘mulheres do elefante’ either. Rog went for a trip on the circus bus, that explains it all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I do not understand how Pongo, etc. have got themselves worked up into a rabid lather about what I say. Nothing I have suggested involves visiting suffering, discrimination, etc. against anyone. Simply that, as genetic engineering develops, we shall be able to remove an anomoly from the human gene pool. Pongo - I suggest you consult the OED on the meanings of "deviant" and you will see that my use of the adjective is perfectly correct. Of course homosexuality occurs "naturally" - when did I say it didn't? But diptheria, polio, smallpox, AIDS, etc. also occur naturally - are you seriously suggesting that we should not attempt to eradicate them because of that, in pursuit of LDV's precious wish for "diversity" or Chinahands view of "live and let live"? As to logic, mine is pretty impeccable (do you really need it spelled out, step by step?) rather than flawed whereas your expressed position has no logic to either be flawed or otherwise! Chinahand - what has the existance of homosexual behaviour in animals got to do with the price of soap? It's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Some animals eat their young in certain circumstances - is that an argument for cannibalism being OK? I have reviewed my language and completely fail to understand where it is "bombastic and aggressive" - I cannot be responsible for any (inaccurate) moral or other connotations others may subjectively choose to place on words. And where did I say that homosexuals are not as creative or productive as any other segment of the population - I suspect they're no better or worse in most respects than the rest of us. A bit more reasoned comment and less in the way of emotional paddies would be welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I suggest you consult the OED on the meanings of "deviant" and you will see that my use of the adjective is perfectly correct. In any context 'deviant' and 'deviance' etc would be subjective sociological terms to do with social and cultural norms. The meaning is relative / vs what is normal. Which is a subjective. IMO homosexuality is not culturally or socially abnormal. Your use of the term is loaded. BTW - I am not in a lather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I suggest you consult the OED on the meanings of "deviant" and you will see that my use of the adjective is perfectly correct. In any context 'deviant' and 'deviance' etc would be subjective sociological terms to do with social and cultural norms. The meaning is relative / vs what is normal. Which is a subjective. IMO homosexuality is not culturally or socially abnormal. Your use of the term is loaded. BTW - I am not in a lather. "In any context 'deviant' and 'deviance' etc would be subjective sociological terms to do with social and cultural norms." Exactly - in your opinion, which is worth no more than anyone else's. That is why you should refer to a Dictionary - using defined meanings would enable you to properly understand what someone else means. And how do you justify the use of the word "norm"? Your opinion again, I suspect. "Which is a subjective. IMO homosexuality is not culturally or socially abnormal." At least you admit it this time! The hard facts show you to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.