We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → TN Senate and Don't Say Gay
| 145 | 16453 |
This is just wrong. Why can't we talk about whatever we want?
What is it with Americans and our extreme homophobia?
- 145 Replies
It gets coverage in things such as sex-ed class and I know, at least when I was at school (in England), it got a mention in our science class at one point.
Wicca and Scientology both emerged in about the past 100 years.
Maybe that says something about the direction religion is going.
A 'true' religion would have ever existed. There are thousands of people that, for chronological or geographical causes, had no chance to become Christian and to get in heaven.
Dude what does that have to do with what I said?
It gets coverage in things such as sex-ed class and I know, at least when I was at school (in England), it got a mention in our science class at one point.
Was it anything like this?
I keep getting yelled at for making too many threads, so I will put this into this one.
If Tennessee keeps this up, they will be less open minded than some other state that is known for it's cattle and right next to the Gulf of Mexico.
Fail. I mean honestly, gay penguins ring a bell? There is a pair of lesbian albatrosses, I mean honestly, you are talking totally out of your *** on this.
...
The gay penguins were helped by people. Wtf are you talking about. If you're going to pull it out of nature, then I'm sure there is no animal that is completely homosexual in nature, for, if it were, wouldn't it be dead? If you're speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, then homosexuality looks really negative to me seeing as it's only purpose I see is to weed out bad genes [Not saying Homosexuals are retarded or any offensive, comment] -- but, what else would it be for?
What do you mean with "not completely homosexual"?
Like... They still mate heterosexually.
Oh, and when asking about what purpose it would have on an evolutionary scale, I'm assuming that it's part of genetics or that it's 'natural'.
Like... They still mate heterosexually.
In some cases yes, but we really can't make this statement for every case. More so this seems like your just grasping at straws at this point. "Oh there gay but not quite." What a load.
"Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences
for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to
most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented
rams)."
http://endo.endojournals.org/content/145/2/478.full.pdf+html
That means given the choice the gay ram will pick another ram to "ram" together with over a female partner.
I'm assuming that it's part of genetics or that it's 'natural'.
This doesn't make any sense.
The gay penguins were helped by people. Wtf are you talking about. If you're going to pull it out of nature, then I'm sure there is no animal that is completely homosexual in nature, for, if it were, wouldn't it be dead?
.... why would it be dead? it wouldnt be able to reproduce but..... why would it be dead??? gay humans dont die because of that... why would an animal been. you know humans are animals too and thus also part of nature.
then homosexuality looks really negative to me seeing as it's only purpose I see is to weed out bad genes [Not saying Homosexuals are retarded or any offensive, comment] -- but, what else would it be for?
Population control comes to mind.
Are we debating homosexuality in animals? Because there is evidence of it in most animals.
I'm not saying its a genetic disorder. I'm just saying that genetic disorders are prevalent in a lot... if not all animals. my earlier argument was just that morphologically... it doesn't go there. male climax releases reproductive material... so one could postulate that at least the male is supposed to by fact of evolution climax inside a place that has the corresponding reprodcutive material. Dogs express homosexual tendencies...yet they also have heart disease, kidney problems, cancer, and the list goes on. We have some form or other of those too. If whatever mutation occurred that sets homosexual tendencies into motion actually occurred, then it would be sound to say it either occurred early in some evolutionary ancestor that links us way back or that it surfaced at different times early in different lineages (it could happen). my usage of the word natural was not how I intended it earlier on. with how I see the anatomy (structure) and physiology (function) of these different parts... homosexuality isn't supposed to they're used. In that way I see genetic homosexuality as a genetic mistake that pushes the individual to use it in some way other than its intended function.
What you do with your body is your own choice tho... To allow anything other than climax inside of any orifice than the one that holds the egg(s) and then not allow it everywhere else between consenting individuals is discrimination. and since morality is a human derived concept as far as we know then who is to say using what you have how you want to use it is bad if not morphologically correct.
the only real problem I have with it is... if hot chicks can marry each other now... then there is no hope for me... forever alone. :'(
...but that's a personal problem
if hot chicks can marry each other now... then there is no hope for me... forever alone. :'(
Lawl, here it is, the root of all anti homosexuality, JEALOUSY!
lol i think we just discovered the truth behind this whole issue XD
Gosh when I said dead I meant it would die out over time seeing as it wouldn't breed, sorry for that mess-up, lol.
Lawl, here it is, the root of all anti homosexuality, JEALOUSY!rofl that might be it.
Next, as I stated before, Gays act like a super uncle, helping to raise family members without being in competition for breeding.
Really? I remembered reading a little about them and all I heard is that they have sex. A Lot. Never heard about any super uncle. Could you give a link, even like, Wikipedia? I searched it up but there wasn't any thing really specific towards Bonobo's when it comes to being gay.
Population control comes to mind.
Well that doesn't make sense, Evolution can't dictate itself based on the success of a species. The act of evolution leads to good or bad population.
So, if, an organism were to be gay, it wouldn't mate, and therefore it's genetic tree or whatever would die out -- and... What?
All I'm saying is, is that if it were to be genetic, it doesn't sound as it is a good mutation/gene.
That means given the choice the gay ram will pick another ram to "ram" together with over a female partner.
But wouldn't that Ram eventually pick a female partner in order to have offspring?
And I know it sounds unfair/stupid to say "Oh they're gay but not quite"
But if you really think about it, you'd see that most animals don't have far too many social customs in comparison to us, so clearly many of them do show homosexual traits, but they're all pretty much bi-sexual. So this shows that yes, in nature, animals do exhibit homosexuality, but not out of some sort of binding genetic preference.
So then, that might lead to us thinking that it isn't a genetic difference that makes one gay.
Which could then bring us back to square one, except, that we'd know it's a choice and not a genetic mutation.
As for the Lesbian Albatrosses.
For one thing, the same-sex pairs appear to do everything male-female pairs do except have sex, and Young isnât really sure, or comfortable judging, whether that technically qualifies them as lesbians or not.
If you read on, Young, the scientist, says it's a human term and not related to the research and blah blah blah.
^ That quotes from this NY Times article
So I'm not sure if we'd really qualify that as lifelong homosexuality [Seeing as most Albatrosses exhibit a lot of monogamy, which is usually heterosexual, or that almost-lesbian thing]
You must be logged in to post a reply!