Possible explanations for homosexuality explained.

[blackout]

He seems to be misinformed. Either that or he thinks his religion requires him to limit my freedom and equality, so when I demand freedom and equality, it limits his freedom of religion!

You know, that may very well be it. Really.

 

[Kerr]

No it does not. Homosexuality does not sustain itself because it does not propagate itself. It is not inheritable and declines the success of mate selection.

Tell that to all the homosexuals with kids.

 

[Alceste]

No it does not. Homosexuality does not sustain itself because it does not propagate itself. It is not inheritable and declines the success of mate selection.

Don't be stupid. The entire animal kingdom is positively teeming with homosexuality. So you are OBVIOUSLY incorrect in your assumptions. How you can argue otherwise in seriousness is a mystery to me.

 

[Jeremiah]

• Reasoning with you hasn't worked.
• Appealing to your sense of fairness and social justice hasn't worked.
• Appealing to the sanctity of romantic love hasn't worked.
• Providing empirical evidence that you are wrong hasn't worked.
• Pointing out the contradictions and absurdities inherent in your "reproduction-only" mentality hasn't worked.
• Pointing out the illegality - and inevitable legal conclusion - of discrimination based on gender relationships hasn't worked.

My guess is that derision and mockery aren't going to work either, but they're way more fun and less time consuming.

Well, you know what Mr. Ron White said.

 

[Jeremiah]

Yet we currently rely on them to distinguish right from wrong. better suck it up and get with the program.

There is a law in Montana that says "Seven or more Indians are considered a raiding or war party and it is legal to shoot them."

Need I say more?

How about Alabama... "Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death."

Do you need more?


OK Utah... "A husband is responsible for every criminal act committed by his wife while she is in his presence."

How about we use our heads to determine right from wrong, that sounds like a much better idea to me; and, in truth, what you said is, kind of, very dumb.

 

[Jeremiah]

Vegetarianism is not something someone is compelled to do by genetics or otherwise. It is completely choice.

So by association of vegetarianism to homosexuality, you are saying homosexuality is a choice.

"Vegetarianism is not something someone is compelled to do by genetics or otherwise. It is completely choice."

O you can prove this? Go on prove it....I dare you. Some vegetarians are so, simply because they don't like the taste of meat; that sounds like a genetic influence to me. And I think when it comes down to it, we'll see, that to some degree, most of our resulting behavior has some genetic influence.

"So by [your] association of vegetarianism to homosexuality, you are saying homosexuality is a choice."

I never associated it with vegetarianism, that was fabricate by your mind.

 

[Jeremiah]

You might be a redneck if...

Lust and Love are different. In society we learn to control or "turn off" that lust section of the brain when regarding kin with love. Those who don't learn to turn that off often end up like McKenzie Phillips and her father:
Mackenzie Phillips claims incestuous affair with rock icon | Entertainment | Reuters
Ryan O'Neal: I Didn't Know She Was My Daughter Hollywood's Creepiest Families | GetBack Retro Images, Video, Games and Trivia

If you didn't know that someone was your sibling or parent and you saw them as physically attractive. the "Lust" section of the brain becomes active.

And since Lust is not a prerequisite for Love, nor the other way around, It can be deduced that Lust and Love are completely identifiable as separate and controllable.

EDIT** And remember Madhater, should you ever want, in Alabama, "Incestuous marriages are legal."

 

[misanthropic_clown]

No it does not. Homosexuality does not sustain itself because it does not propagate itself. It is not inheritable and declines the success of mate selection.

You know, strictly speaking madhatter is correct. That is, an exclusively homosexual person is not going to propagate any genes, and thus their share of genes are lost. Homosexuality does not propagate itself. Rather the genetic causes of homosexuality must be advantageous to heterosexual propogation, and there is the source of propagation of the genes. In that sense, homosexuality would continue not because homosexuality is propagating itself, but because it is a side product of an advantageous gene set.

But again, that does not argue that homosexuals provide no value to society to the extent they should be denied marriage.

 

[madhatter85]

"So by [your] association of vegetarianism to homosexuality, you are saying homosexuality is a choice."

I never associated it with vegetarianism, that was fabricate by your mind.

you did associate it because you brought it up as an argument for ssm.

 

[madhatter85]

*as also posted here
The history of human marriage - Google Books
In this book the author, an anthropologist, shows that throughout the animal kingdom (including primitive humans), those that are monogamous in relationships, do so for the care of the young. some animals have different ways of caring for the young, however they always include a mother and father. Homosexual activity in animals is never monogamous as the breeding and care of offspring still depend on both sexes playing a role in the care of offspring. The only animals that exhibit monogamy are exclusively male-female for the production and care of offspring.

Since SSM pundits are so adamant that we should mimic the animal kingdom [since they always bring up, "But animals do it!"]. Marriages should only be sanctioned between male and female partners for the prospective production and care for offspring.

 

[madhatter85]

Tell that to all the homosexuals with kids.

Which were created via sexual reproduction, something that requires both boy parts and girl parts to do, artificial or otherwise

 

[ragordon168]

Another possible explaination for homosexuality could be that nature wishes to illiminate certain genetic traits from within the human species, and those who are born with the suspect gene, are giving a desire to lust after the flesh of their own gender and are repulsed by the thought of copulating with those of the opposite sex, thereby diminishing the propagation of the condemned genetic strain.

im not sure about that. theres the big hunt for the 'gay gene' to explain why people are gay but to my knowledge they havent found it. besides a gene couldnt explain why identical twins are different sexuallities.

 

[ragordon168]

Which were created via sexual reproduction, something that requires both boy parts and girl parts to do, artificial or otherwise

but why are these kids available for gays to adopt? oh yeah straight families didnt want them. so which is better living in care or living in a home with two loving parents regardless of whether they are straight or GBLT?

 

[madhatter85]

but why are these kids available for gays to adopt? oh yeah straight families didnt want them. so which is better living in care or living in a home with two loving parents regardless of whether they are straight or GBLT?

Living with heterosexual parents who are infertile would be best :yes:

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Living with heterosexual parents who are infertile would be best :yes:

C'mon Hatter, an honest answer. In your ideal world would homosexuality exist?

 

[McBell]

Living with heterosexual parents who are infertile would be best :yes:

Prove it.

 

[Mr Cheese]

You know, strictly speaking madhatter is correct. That is, an exclusively homosexual person is not going to propagate any genes, and thus their share of genes are lost. Homosexuality does not propagate itself. Rather the genetic causes of homosexuality must be advantageous to heterosexual propogation, and there is the source of propagation of the genes. In that sense, homosexuality would continue not because homosexuality is propagating itself, but because it is a side product of an advantageous gene set.

But again, that does not argue that homosexuals provide no value to society to the extent they should be denied marriage.

so you are saying gay male sprem is never used to fertilise eggs?

never....

:sarcastic

 

[misanthropic_clown]

so you are saying gay male sprem is never used to fertilise eggs?

never....

:sarcastic

Hence the disqualifier "exclusively homosexual". I appreciate that homosexuals can and do reproduce. With or without resorting to artificial insemination too. But if a homosexual were to stick life-long to their true sexuality, they would not be contributing to the gene pool. Hence my assertion that madhatter is strictly correct if we keep to the genetics we hypothesised to be behind it - exclusive homosexuals do not contribute to the gene pool, so it would be more logical to consider (perhaps only male in this instance) homosexuality a byproduct of a genetic advantage in heterosexuals. I recognise fully that there are plenty of homosexuals who reproduce, or contribute to reproduction.

 

[McBell]

I recognise fully that there are plenty of homosexuals who reproduce, or contribute to reproduction.

so you are basically arguing a technicality that does not apply to the real world?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Hence the disqualifier "exclusively homosexual". I appreciate that homosexuals can and do reproduce. With or without resorting to artificial insemination too. But if a homosexual were to stick life-long to their true sexuality, they would not be contributing to the gene pool. Hence my assertion that madhatter is strictly correct if we keep to the genetics we hypothesised to be behind it - exclusive homosexuals do not contribute to the gene pool, so it would be more logical to consider (perhaps only male in this instance) homosexuality a byproduct of a genetic advantage in heterosexuals. I recognise fully that there are plenty of homosexuals who reproduce, or contribute to reproduction.

madhatter is strictly correct in that, homsexual men are not likely to use natural conception methods...putting a penis in a vagina (the entire message of his puerile argument)

guess what, we have other methods now....:sarcastic