Homosexuality is caused by a recessive gene and we should be trying to remove it from the human gene pool, just like we would remove genes that caused austism. We should not be accepting it.
California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted
- Thread starter Furious Styles
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Lol ok I literally had to make an account after 2 years of lurking cause this is just silly. Why exactly should homosexuality be weeded out of the gene pool? In a time where we have overpopulation and plenty of children needing to be adopted, couples that can't on their own have children are quite beneficial to the human race actually.lordbuxton said:
To lordbuxton
The fact that this guy uses the comeback "you are wrong i am right" signifies that he is, indeed, a troll of gigartiantic proportions.
"The entire psychiatric community ? You mean 8 or so liberals who have spent half a hour on wiki ?" Well, if those 8 liberals are the whole community, then yes, the whole community does agree.
And have you ever heard of the argument "Nature vs Nurture?"
Edit "Nature vs Nurture" instead of or, sorry ^^
The fact that this guy uses the comeback "you are wrong i am right" signifies that he is, indeed, a troll of gigartiantic proportions.
"The entire psychiatric community ? You mean 8 or so liberals who have spent half a hour on wiki ?" Well, if those 8 liberals are the whole community, then yes, the whole community does agree.
And have you ever heard of the argument "Nature vs Nurture?"
Edit "Nature vs Nurture" instead of or, sorry ^^
Actually, homosexuality has not been eradicated from animals that are still subject to the full spectrum of environmental pressures (i.e. animals other than humans).warboss5 said:
Homosexuality is well documented in hundreds of species of non-human animals, despite natural selection.
Edit: How rude of me! I forgot to even acknowledge the source of this thread's origin.
My bad.
Anyway, I'll sum up my reaction in one word: HURRAY!
.
Besides, I'm fairly certain that usually homosexuality is caused by overexposure to certain hormones while the foetus is still developing in the womb, not genetics so I don't think Darwin's theories even apply here, do they? I could be wrong, though.warboss5 said:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368541,00.html [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368541,00.html]lordbuxton said:
A mutation that increases fertility is just plain awesome.
..Thank you for more or less posting what I was about to say.RebellionXXI said:
The troll fails at intelligence. And apparently thinks everything against him is "liberal agenda". Ignore him, it hurts to pay attention.
To listen to your moronic views is to drive valued, logical brain cells to commit suicide.lordbuxton said:
If you liked living in the 50s why didn't you stay there, Gramps?
OT: America, land of the free!*
*[small]As long as you're white, straight, and live in the correct state! And aren't Muslim whatever you do.[/small]
Seriously though, this is good news. I'm still annoyed it's not just called marriage over here instead of being a 'civil partnership'. Still, I suppose that's not really the most important thing.
Wow, typical liberal blowing what i say out of absoulte reason. I mean a faith gene ?RebellionXXI said:
Gene therapy does need more research, but it still does not justify accepting homosexuality as normal.
A large number of prominent historical minds all had traits of autism.lordbuxton said:
If you'd removed all the genes for it from the gene pool those minds would not have existed and we would be scientifically poorer for it.
Assuming for a moment that you're actually serious, you have a very short-sighted view of evolution and genetics.
I resent the 'Autism' remark. I could start saying a lot of hateful things right now, but I won't. I'm simply going to say you are an incredibly ignorant individual.lordbuxton said:
Also that I would like you to leave. Immediately. I already know you're not going to listen to that, though.
Let me ask you a one word question: WHY?!?!?!MoeTheMonk said:
WHY should "stupid, misguided, close-minded, bigoted idiots" be the ones to make the decisions? And what the hell do you mean "The issue is not what's important"? That is just PHENOMENALLY stupid and you really should have thought about what you were saying for 3 seconds before you shot your mouth off.
You may have been attempting to use sarcasm (badly) but you made the perfectly good strawman point that a lot of the people in favour of oppressing homosexuals ARE stupid and SHOULD be ignored by a judge with the power to see clearly. Of course he's fucking smart- he's a judge. You need more to get that position than 3 years experience behind a McDonalds counter.
Its comments like this that make me wonder what kind of lemming puts more faith is the judgement of a dozen hooting retards than a single intelligent man. You're saying that it's better that wrong prevails over right as long as wrong has the majority? That almost makes me feel like invoking Godwin's Law. You're basically invoking mob rule- "The majority wants it, so that is how it should be!" Grow up.
Wow.... where to begin...?
1. 'Activist judge' people: Have we heard of 'checks and balances'? The whole damn point of the judiciary is to smack down unconstitutional laws. That's why they're a whole branch of government unto themselves, as opposed to being under the Justice Department (and thus subject to the executive). It's also why they're appointed as opposed to elected: To protect them from the whims of populism.
2. If it's not affecting you directly, then it shouldn't be your concern. The 'land of the free' rhetoric means just that. I don't get to push you around, you don't get to push me around. We pass laws, true, but in theory those laws should be protecting people (i.e. theft is illegal), as opposed to telling people they can't do something because we don't like it (i.e. no blue hats for anyone). Nobody has a valid objection to gays unless they're the sort of person who're overly concerned with the moral fiber of their neighbors. I suppose there's an argument for the decreased revenues that joint filing would result it, but that's a prejudicial viewpoint. By that logic, it would be ok to tax whites more than blacks.
3. Lordbuxton: Hahahahahahahahahaha. Wow. I'm going to let the rest of the community handle you and your views. One note I would like to make, however, is that psychological disorders are defined solely by what we consider 'normal' behavior, which varies radically from culture to culture. I'm sure a lot of people would consider the amount of time we all spend here abnormal, and if pushed far enough 'gaming' could be considered a disorder in and of itself. In this country in particular, however, the psychiatric community has decided that homosexuality falls within the range of normal behavior and as such is no longer defined as a disorder.
1. 'Activist judge' people: Have we heard of 'checks and balances'? The whole damn point of the judiciary is to smack down unconstitutional laws. That's why they're a whole branch of government unto themselves, as opposed to being under the Justice Department (and thus subject to the executive). It's also why they're appointed as opposed to elected: To protect them from the whims of populism.
2. If it's not affecting you directly, then it shouldn't be your concern. The 'land of the free' rhetoric means just that. I don't get to push you around, you don't get to push me around. We pass laws, true, but in theory those laws should be protecting people (i.e. theft is illegal), as opposed to telling people they can't do something because we don't like it (i.e. no blue hats for anyone). Nobody has a valid objection to gays unless they're the sort of person who're overly concerned with the moral fiber of their neighbors. I suppose there's an argument for the decreased revenues that joint filing would result it, but that's a prejudicial viewpoint. By that logic, it would be ok to tax whites more than blacks.
3. Lordbuxton: Hahahahahahahahahaha. Wow. I'm going to let the rest of the community handle you and your views. One note I would like to make, however, is that psychological disorders are defined solely by what we consider 'normal' behavior, which varies radically from culture to culture. I'm sure a lot of people would consider the amount of time we all spend here abnormal, and if pushed far enough 'gaming' could be considered a disorder in and of itself. In this country in particular, however, the psychiatric community has decided that homosexuality falls within the range of normal behavior and as such is no longer defined as a disorder.
Actually, a recessive homosexuality gene could be of benefit to a species by ensuring a passive statistical population control where a certain percentage of the species does not reproduce.warboss5 said:
Those hormones are, ultimately, controlled by the woman's genetics, and as such evolution would still have an effect even if it was more subtle.MGlBlaze said: