gay - is it ok?

[jay_a2j]

Flame Wars way.

Which bit was a flame? I'm fairly sure it was all true...

None of it was true. (except the evolution part)

[Stopper]

Flame Wars way.

Which bit was a flame? I'm fairly sure it was all true...

None of it was true. (except the evolution part)

Really? You sure seem to like Ron Paul. A lot.

[Guiscard]

Flame Wars way.

Which bit was a flame? I'm fairly sure it was all true...

None of it was true. (except the evolution part)

Oh right. You're convinced about the plane, then... and that there's no new world order... Because I was getting worried there, Jay.

You actually had us for a while...

Glad to see you back in the land of the sane.

[jay_a2j]

Flame Wars way.

Which bit was a flame? I'm fairly sure it was all true...

None of it was true. (except the evolution part)

Oh right. You're convinced about the plane, then... and that there's no new world order... Because I was getting worried there, Jay.

You actually had us for a while...

Glad to see you back in the land of the sane.

No, but using those things won't convince me that homosexuality is "normal".

[Natali]

The fact is:
1. The bonobo story is factual! That is nothing to believe in it's a matter of fact!
2. I asked you a simple question, are you gay or not? That was not an insult but a simple derivation of conclusion from your statesments.
3. You can go to flame wars but you'll be there on your own since it was just a question.
4. You were the one who insulted gay population. If you decide to go to flame wars you can "burn" yourself.
5. One more interesting fact for you: you are in one small part, depending on your gender, male/female. That means if you are male that actually you're in one small percentage a female, because of the estrogen in your bloodstream. The fact is that all human beings are female at one stage of fetal development. At later stages testosterone transforms males from their female templates. Ovaries are transformed into testicles.

For jay_a2j with love

[Guiscard]

Ovaries are transformed into testicles.

My ovaries must have been fucking massive...

[suggs]

Feel sad this thread is still going.
The answer is Yes, its "normal".
Thats been the answer for the last few thousand years.
Now can we wrap this up and work out how to live on Mars, or get workable Fusion OR SOMETHING IMPORTANT OR MEANINGFUL?

These sorts of neandethal threads make me think that the human race hasnt got very far, really.

[MeDeFe]

Important? Meaningful? On an internet forum?


oic you were joking!

[suggs]

Important? Meaningful? On an internet forum?


oic you were joking!

Fail to see why the internet has to be 100% junk conspiracy nonsense.
So yes, serious duscussion is good.
Where Jay when you need him lol

[MeDeFe]

Well, but for some reason I doubt we'll be able to work out nuclear fusion or find a way of getting to Mars and colonise the planet (project sponsored by Snickers(tm)) on this internet forum.

[Neutrino]

Well, but for some reason I doubt we'll be able to work out nuclear fusion or find a way of getting to Mars and colonise the planet (project sponsored by Snickers(tm)) on this internet forum.

Well, if you took all the nonsensical crap Jay has posted here, you could condense it, then expose it to common sense. This would annihilate Jay's arguments and accelerate your ship far faster than antimatter ever could...

[Stopper]

Well, but for some reason I doubt we'll be able to work out nuclear fusion or find a way of getting to Mars and colonise the planet (project sponsored by Snickers(tm)) on this internet forum.

I should hope not too, sir!

Mars...



...colonised by Snickers?



The very idea! You seem to almost suggest Snickers is somehow superior to Mars! Shame on you!

[suggs]

My (rather boring) point is that "debates" homosexulity retards progressive thinkig, and is symptomatic of just how thick a lot of people are.

[MeDeFe]

Well, but for some reason I doubt we'll be able to work out nuclear fusion or find a way of getting to Mars and colonise the planet (project sponsored by Snickers(tm)) on this internet forum.

I should hope not too, sir!

Mars...



...colonised by Snickers?



The very idea! You seem to almost suggest Snickers is somehow superior to Mars! Shame on you!

I never said I don't hope for it, you have to admit that it would be funny, though. Mars is colonised! by Snickers...

[Simonov]

There actually exists evolutionary explanation for homosexuality. Group (family) can actually benefit (genetically) if one member is gay. Let me make an example:
Person A (heterosexual) has three sisters and they are all heterosexual. They will marry and raise one child each. That means that this family, let's call it A will have 4 children totally.
Person B (homosexual male) has three sisters and they are also heterosexual, but what is the difference? Since person B is homosexual and as such can't have his own children, he'll be able to help each of his sisters to raise one child more than sisters in the A family. Since each of B's sisters will have two children each that means that family B will have totally six children despite the fact that person B is homosexual. On the contrary persons B homosexuality is genetically beneficent to family B because they will have more children and more genes transfered into the next generation than the A family. Person B can help his sisters to raise one extra child because he doesn't have his own and as such he can divert his resources and time into raising his siblings.

Homosexuality isn't limited to Homo sapiens species only. There exists a subspecies of chimpanzees in Africa called bonobo, their whole social structure is based on sex. To put it simply they use sex as a way of reducing social tension. When any bonobo individual is annoyed or irritated he can just "hump" on his/her's clan mate and reduce the tension. Gender is irrelevant.

Conclusion: Homosexuality is perfectly natural phenomenon.

i read your argument but i think what you wrote about genetical benefits of having a gay member of family is not valid. what you described is a social benefit, there are no guarantees that sisters will have more children because gay brother has no children of his own (and also important moment is that one family member has no children not that he's gay). a correlation between the two things described doesn't exist. nature has it way in controlling birth rate of it's own (maybe you heard of increasing number of male sterility in the world).

saying that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon proves nothing. you must note that murder, rape, incest and pedophilia are also widely spread in animal world and thus natural. what was your point with this one then?

if u look from angle of human sexuality there are many more perversions like sado-masochism,etc. but problem of gay population is that their sexual orientation is clearly visible. there much more than just straight and gay division. so i believe homosexuality should be tolerated and people of this orientation should be able to join in communion, but adopting children is a step to far for me (at least in current society).

from personal view i judge everyone based on their abilities and character, not their race or sexual orientation. but still i don't like socializing with gay people who emphasize their orientation, and u can see it just by looking at them. we all like people who have view and beliefs similar to our own not just in terms of sexuality but in general. i don't see why one should side pro or anti homosexuality. and why do gay people make much fuss if u say anything against their life style - they should also be more tolerant to other opinions. also i don't see the point in those parades other then provoking conservatives and right extremists.

to conclude i'm not anti-gay in terms of sexuality (it's a private choice and should be respected) but most gay people i know irritate me (their behavior that is, their life style which is in most cases you must admit very distinct and not common for straight population) so i stay away. i do the same with straight people who i dislike but when u act like this towards a gay people you get labeled as homophobe or worse. they're using the same kind of discrimination they fight against and that make them hypocrites. they should respect other's choice to dislike them (i'm not talking here about insults or beatings but about opposing opinions).

[Simonov]

The very idea! You seem to almost suggest Snickers is somehow superior to Mars! Shame on you!

it's way better. mars sucks...

[Natali]

I wonder if this could bother jay: two girls in the pool, all wet and naked, cuddling each other and kissing and they invite him to join. What would be his answer:
A) if yes - so gay
B) if no - OOOO! I don't think so!

[jay_a2j]

I wonder if this could bother jay: two girls in the pool, all wet and naked, cuddling each other and kissing and they invite him to join. What would be his answer:
A) if yes - so gay
B) if no - OOOO! I don't think so!

How about:

C) he leaves to go have a beer because he is married and (parish the thought) he has morals.

[suggs]

so its moral to be homophobic?
Stop being so frightened-be a man, and let men be men...

[b.k. barunt]

so its moral to be homophobic?
Stop being so frightened-be a man, and let men be men...

Suggs, you are not the ideal model for the poster boy of normality. And as to the wet, naked girls in the pool, heh heh, well i'm not moral.


Hornibaz


Honibaz

[suggs]

True-but one day the Proffessor will get my meds right.

[Natali]

[Simonov wrote]i read your argument but i think what you wrote about genetical benefits of having a gay member of family is not valid. what you described is a social benefit, there are no guarantees that sisters will have more children because gay brother has no children of his own (and also important moment is that one family member has no children not that he's gay). a correlation between the two things described doesn't exist. nature has it way in controlling birth rate of it's own (maybe you heard of increasing number of male sterility in the world).[/quote]
You are right when you say that there is no guarantees. This is a theory that is trying to show how can homosexual behavior spread despite the fact that gay people can't have children. Instead they can spread their genes through their relatives by helping them raise more children. Benefit is genetical and social. Genetical because as you can see from the example person B will have two more nephews than the person A, when you transfer that into genes it's 25% more genes for the person B in the next generation.
[Simonov wrote]
if u view homosexuality as a natural phenomenon you must note that proves nothing. you must note that murder, rape, incest and pedophilia are also widely spread in animal world. what was your point with this one then?[/quote]
Again right. I did try to prove that it's natural. That doesn't make murder, rape, incest and pedophilia morally right. But you must note that morality is a human concept. But being gay unlike murder, rape, incest and pedophilia isn't morally wrong.

[Natali]

So jay you are trading fantasy for vice?

[jay_a2j]

But being gay unlike murder, rape, incest and pedophilia isn't morally wrong.


Says you. Funny how Christianity along with most other religions condemn it as "morally wrong".

[Iliad]

But being gay unlike murder, rape, incest and pedophilia isn't morally wrong.


Says you. Funny how Christianity along with most other religions condemn it as "morally wrong".

What other religions? And why is it wrong? Homophobia is as bad as racism. It's not choice, it's not their fault it's how they are born jay