They Had Two Mommies in 1923

[kcdodd]

Given that evolution has not eliminated homosexuality thus far, I see little reason to believe that it violates the laws of nature in any way.

You really typed that?

Explain to me how a homosexual couple can procreate naturally?

Yeah I never bought into people being born homosexual, it violates everything evolution has taught us. It's a learned behavior / personal choice, and there is nothing wrong with that. I really hate how whenever there is something unexplainable to a person people like to fall back on "their just born that way", like it's some sort of excuse.

A fairly straight forward explanation is simply that being gay does not prevent reproduction. Sorry to tell you all this, but everything down there is fully functional. Now consider the effect of heterosexual marriage and reproduction through social construct. Essentially, the Christian's ideal solution for all their gays. A clear and guaranteed path for the survival of the "gay gene". Even without forced reproduction, other more modern examples are lesbians who have children through artificial insemination, or gay men who have used a surrogate mother. That in addition to what others have mentioned on non-direct passing of genes through relatives.

I would also add that if sexuality is not binary, then there is no expectation that "gayness" would ever be wiped out. You could always have convergence incrementally. Also, not all genes have much bearing on survival and reproduction, at least anymore, like having blond hair. If being gay was a survival gene, I would expect the occurrence to be far higher then it is. And I would also point to the many genes which persist in equal or higher percentages than being gay, and yet are directly detrimental to survival in the wild: forms of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, disabilities, etc having ties to a genetic cause. So please, think.

[ScottL]

Just pointing out that it was considered acceptable for a long duration in the past, before Christianity deemed it unacceptable. Just saying....Romans, Greeks, etc....

I would also note that many animals revert to a homosexual behavior at times of heightened population....

[ladajo]

I would like to point out the observed correlation between the complete collapse of major cultures once they had openly and widely adopted homosexuality.

On first take, seems like a society's death sentence...just sayin.

[Diogenes]

You really typed that?

Explain to me how a homosexual couple can procreate naturally?

Yeah I never bought into people being born homosexual, it violates everything evolution has taught us. It's a learned behavior / personal choice, and there is nothing wrong with that. I really hate how whenever there is something unexplainable to a person people like to fall back on "their just born that way", like it's some sort of excuse.

A fairly straight forward explanation is simply that being gay does not prevent reproduction. Sorry to tell you all this, but everything down there is fully functional.

The malfunction is in the firmware, not the hardware.

Now consider the effect of heterosexual marriage and reproduction through social construct. Essentially, the Christian's ideal solution for all their gays. A clear and guaranteed path for the survival of the "gay gene". Even without forced reproduction, other more modern examples are lesbians who have children through artificial insemination, or gay men who have used a surrogate mother.

A teacup in the ocean.

That in addition to what others have mentioned on non-direct passing of genes through relatives.

I would also add that if sexuality is not binary, then there is no expectation that "gayness" would ever be wiped out. You could always have convergence incrementally. Also, not all genes have much bearing on survival and reproduction, at least anymore, like having blond hair. If being gay was a survival gene, I would expect the occurrence to be far higher then it is.

Your math is fuzzy here. How can you say it should be this level, but not that level? How do you quantify a topic with so many unknowns? Experimental evidence indicates ~ 2%. We don't know why, or even if it is genetic. There is much circumstantial evidence to indicate that it is affected by environmental factors.

And I would also point to the many genes which persist in equal or higher percentages than being gay, and yet are directly detrimental to survival in the wild: forms of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, disabilities, etc having ties to a genetic cause. So please, think.

All of which mostly onset subsequent to normal child bearing years. Nature cares not at all what happens to creatures AFTER they have reproduced, unless it impacts the survival of the offspring.

[Diogenes]

Just pointing out that it was considered acceptable for a long duration in the past, before Christianity deemed it unacceptable. Just saying....Romans, Greeks, etc....

The Romans developed quite a lot of debauchery before they collapsed. Look up Caligula, et al. As for the Greeks, you may or may not be surprised to discover that the version of Homosexuality they practiced was Pederasty. (Molesting young boys.) They were not so much into Adult/Adult homosexuality.

J

I would also note that many animals revert to a homosexual behavior at times of heightened population....

This is another one of those false comparisons such as I mentioned before. It asserts an equivalence between the sexual attraction of one male to another male, and that of animals asserting dominance on each other. (Actually more like hundreds of other males. Monogamy is not the norm among Homosexuals)

Most people are aware that a dog will hump a leg, but prefers a bitch if he can get one. The dog is not sexually attracted to the leg, the leg is just a convenient means to engage in masturbation. In a choice between a bitch and another male, very few dogs will prefer the male. In most of these cases of so-called animal homosexuality, it is a case of asserting dominance or masturbation, and not an actual preference for other males of their species.

[Diogenes]

I would like to point out the observed correlation between the complete collapse of major cultures once they had openly and widely adopted homosexuality.

On first take, seems like a society's death sentence...just sayin.

There are two serious societal objections to homosexuality.

1. The practice transfers diseases rapidly between participants.

Homosexuality is normally characterized by excessive promiscuity. According to studies done in San Fransisco prior to the Bath house ban, 10 sexual encounters per night were common. Any diseases possessed by one of the participants easily transfers to the others, thereby infecting them too. Indeed, I have read studies that indicate the vast majority of the nation's reservoir of sexually transmitted diseases lingers within this community. Prior to the development of modern medicine, this would have had the result of killing all participants. People would have seen such people wasting away from disease, and rightly assumed that the behavior was inherently dangerous.




2. The practice tends to produce progressively darker and more aggressive fetishization.


Beyond excessive promiscuity, the behavior produces an ever expanding and continuous resort to fetishes. As one sort of behavior gives way to boredom, participants feel the need to continuously push the boundaries ever further. They may move from Oral, to @nal, then on to watersports and scat, BSDM, TransGender, Pederasty, Necrophilia, rape, torture and snuff.

In other words, they get progressively more aggressive and twisted. If they have once made the decision to ignore the natural boundaries, at what boundaries will they eventually stop?

Dahmer, Ng, Gacy, and recently Magnotta. (There are a lot more) are examples of what I am talking about. They simply recognize no limits on their appetites, and their appetites get progressively deviant when they are permitted to do so. Whatever had previously satisfied them will over time stop working, (as with other drugs) and they must resort to ever deeper forays into the macabre to get their "fix."


Both of these characteristics make the practice a dangerous behavior for any society to tolerate. It is only as a result of how large our population has become and how prosperous is our nation that our society has become so indulgent of the practice, but the inherent nature of it will not long be satisfied upon reaching any particular goal. (such as same sex marriage) It will then move the goal posts and once more demand some new concession from society for what it wants next, and it will always be perpetually unsatisfied.

[Diogenes]

And just after I posted that last message, I saw this:



Parents Outraged After School Principal Allegedly Teaches 5th Graders About Oral & Anal Sex

A disturbing story is making its way out of a small community in Washington State, where residents are outraged over a school lesson that was delivered to fifth-grade children. During a sex education class led by the Onalaska Elementary School principal, graphic descriptions of oral and anal sex were purportedly delivered.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/raping- ... -anal-sex/

[Betruger]

I would like to point out the observed correlation between the complete collapse of major cultures once they had openly and widely adopted homosexuality.

On first take, seems like a society's death sentence...just sayin.

Might sound like a reach, but immediate thought is to compare the above rule of thumb to the 'fitness' rule of thumb in the animal wild. Is any other animal on the planet as unfit IE as fat and helpless as h.s.sapiens ? Yet the animal kingdom is inarguably under our thumbs.
Another facet (seemingly) of this I noticed even as a kid was the relative outsourcing of Man's intelligence (book and street) to externals like books and (to massively larger degrees) electronics, over recorded history.

The more we creep towards post-scarcity, the more Reason trumps classic conventions as single most prime factor.

[Diogenes]

I would like to point out the observed correlation between the complete collapse of major cultures once they had openly and widely adopted homosexuality.

On first take, seems like a society's death sentence...just sayin.

Might sound like a reach, but immediate thought is to compare the above rule of thumb to the 'fitness' rule of thumb in the animal wild. Is any other animal on the planet as unfit IE as fat and helpless as h.s.sapiens ? Yet the animal kingdom is inarguably under our thumbs.

But that particular battle for dominance took millions of years. We evolved to be smarter, and the animals didn't. We also suffered a lot of casualties along the way. We managed to breed ahead of them.

Another facet (seemingly) of this I noticed even as a kid was the relative outsourcing of Man's intelligence (book and street) to externals like books and (to massively larger degrees) electronics, over recorded history.

The more we creep towards post-scarcity, the more Reason trumps classic conventions as single most prime factor.

I think the age of reason peaked some many decades ago. I find all too often that rather intelligent people have no interest in reasoning nowadays. Too many are agenda driven. Look at AGW for example.
(Or any other subject discussed in this forum.)

[kcdodd]

My point being only that the evolution argument against the genetic hypothesis is baseless, and so I gave counter examples only. I will fall back a bit and say that I think the genetic argument, either way, is ultimately irrelevant. At least when it comes to laws.

Anything gay people have done, straight people have done ten times over. And by the way, transgender is not a fetish. Now you're just being a plain ole ignoramus.

I would like to point out the observed correlation between the complete collapse of major cultures once they had openly and widely adopted homosexuality.

On first take, seems like a society's death sentence...just sayin.

What correlation? I'm not aware of it.

[Diogenes]

My point being only that the evolution argument against the genetic hypothesis is baseless, and so I gave counter examples only. I will fall back a bit and say that I think the genetic argument, either way, is ultimately irrelevant. At least when it comes to laws.

Anything gay people have done, straight people have done ten times over.

Males specifically. Women, not so much. The tendency towards violence and schism is seeming far more inherent in males than in females.

And by the way, transgender is not a fetish. Now you're just being a plain ole ignoramus.

You are right in most cases, though cross dressing is a fetish. Poor choice of words on my part. The distinction between the two is the difference between a fetish and a serious psychological problem. Transgender people very badly WANT to be members of the opposite sex.

I would like to point out the observed correlation between the complete collapse of major cultures once they had openly and widely adopted homosexuality.

On first take, seems like a society's death sentence...just sayin.

What correlation? I'm not aware of it.

I wasn't the one who made this statement, so i'm not going to weigh in on it at this time except for one observation.

It has occurred to me from time to time that population replenishment is very much a state security issue. Behavior which damages the ability of a nation state to insure its security is the very essence of a national security issue, and none more so than the ability to populate and maintain a nation capable of defending itself.

Drugs, Abortion, Homosexuality, are all practices that have the ability to de-populate and collapse a nation if allowed to get out of control. I suspect a lot of people never consider that many of our attitudes regarding certain sorts of behavior were developed during periods of time when death was easy and life was hard, and it was always a constant struggle to stay ahead of the next bringer of death.

Now that we have pushed death back so much, many people have embraced beliefs that unknowingly to them, will eventually invite it back in. Evolution will dictate who wins.

I hate to point it out, but the two very well educated women at the top of this thread lost the race in the overall scheme of things. (No offspring.) So too is it happening to those who have embraced the modern Abortion mindset. Guess who the winners will be?


http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/my ... etting-go/

[kcdodd]

Ok, well I'll have to have extra gay sex tonight just for that little bit of stupidity. And I agree, natural selection is always at work. And you have no say in the matter. That's why it's natural selection, not christian selection. The fact that we are still here spits in the face of your argument. Your conclusion does not necessarily follow even if 100% of the population was homosexual. You seem to suffer the delusion, as your peers do, that gay people can't reproduce. And contrary to the best efforts of people like you to actively prevent us from doing so, we are fully capable of raising children. And if, as you like to say, we only make up 2% of the population, then the average percentage of infertile people is on par or higher. How could we possibly cause a larger impact! You are completely illogical. Until we're not here anymore you'll just have to eat it.

[ladajo]

I think the point is that a gay couple cannot reproduce naturally on their own. They must introduce "unnnatural" methods to do so. Ie sex with opposite gender, artificial means, etc...

You seem to be arguing that the plumbing works (fine, no argument there), and more importantly, there is a "Gay Gene", and it can be passed on.

Two different arguments.

The first is clear cut. A true gay couple can not reproduce naturally. They must go outside the bounds of the couple.

The second is up for large debate, and may never be known conclusively. Gay Gene or no Gay Gene. Nature or nurture. Myself, I am inclined to think nurture has much larger play in the game than nature. You may feel otherwise, and that is fine.

[Betruger]

But that particular battle for dominance took millions of years.

In as much as the slow part of the exponential curve took that long, yes. Roughly 1.5 MY from first tool use. Cue Kurzweil. I can't think of any compelling counter argument to the apparent trend of accelerating progress.

Another facet (seemingly) of this I noticed even as a kid was the relative outsourcing of Man's intelligence (book and street) to externals like books and (to massively larger degrees) electronics, over recorded history.

The more we creep towards post-scarcity, the more Reason trumps classic conventions as single most prime factor.

I think the age of reason peaked some many decades ago. I find all too often that rather intelligent people have no interest in reasoning nowadays. Too many are agenda driven. Look at AGW for example.
(Or any other subject discussed in this forum.)

The planet's too cramped. We need to get off of it and get past scarcity. After that Reason ought to really stretch its legs again. And... I'd suggest that e.g. the Renaissance etc are all like such extraordinary highs thanks to so much low hanging fruit not yet picked.

Intelligence prosthetics are the next step we must take. That or life extension. The requirements for advancing science are just ridiculously expensive for our current lifespan.

[Diogenes]

Ok, well I'll have to have extra gay sex tonight just for that little bit of stupidity. And I agree, natural selection is always at work. And you have no say in the matter. That's why it's natural selection, not christian selection.

You know you zinged someone when they start howling.

The fact that we are still here spits in the face of your argument. Your conclusion does not necessarily follow even if 100% of the population was homosexual.

?????

You seem to suffer the delusion, as your peers do, that gay people can't reproduce.

Are you not reading what I write? Of course they can! I never said nor indicated otherwise. They just don't usually find it compelling. It's the difference between capabilities and intent.

And contrary to the best efforts of people like you to actively prevent us from doing so, we are fully capable of raising children.

Again, the distinction between capability and intent.

And if, as you like to say, we only make up 2% of the population, then the average percentage of infertile people is on par or higher. How could we possibly cause a larger impact! You are completely illogical. Until we're not here anymore you'll just have to eat it.

You do not understand my argument. It is your misunderstanding of it that makes it seem illogical. Yes, they can have a far greater impact on a society than can infertile couples.