If you think homosexuality is an unnatural condition...

[cannabineer]

Let’s ignore the rest of your rant for now.

If not a genetic defect, then what cause people to be gay?

Regards
DL

Simple evolutionary advantage. The better-bonded tribes have a bigger stake in making it. It is the Creationist simplistic overlay to posit that sex is only for reproduction. Sex is the directest diplomacy, the exercise of social power.

 

[Dislexicmidget2021]

How was it ever deemed a genetic defect?How do you know that it isnt one of natures processes for species preservation by more or less regulating the populating human species?What causes people to be gay?Exposure to sexual hormones while in the womb during critical periods of brain developement has been known to later influence sexual orientation.Why dose one assume it to be a defect in genetics when it very well may not be a defect in genetics whatsoever>?Homosexuality could very well be another form of natural selection,,,would that seem to be to far fetched?

 

[Heisenberg]

Let’s ignore the rest of your rant for now.

If not a genetic defect, then what cause people to be gay?

Regards
DL

This appears to be a version of the "gaps" argument, which is a very common tactic for those defending pseudoscience and nonsense. The idea is that because there exists a gap in our knowledge that it somehow becomes okay to fill it with your pet idea. What you need is actual support for your idea, not just a lack of competing explanation. The problem here is that actual geneticists do not take the same position. People who understand genetic defects far better than you or I ever will still consider it a mystery, which conflicts with your attitude that genetic defect is a forgone conclusion. Genetics obviously play a part, but to say homosexuality is a defect is to grossly oversimplify the evidence.

"J.B.S. Haldane, one of the giants of evolutionary theory, imagined two alternative genes, one initially found in 99.9 percent of a population and the other in just 0.1 percent. He then calculated that if the rare gene had merely a 1-percent advantage (it produced 101 descendants each generation to the abundant gene's 100), in just 4,000 generations—a mere instant in evolutionary terms—the situation would be reversed, with the formerly rare gene occurring in 99.9 percent of the population's genetic pool. Such is the power of compound interest, acting via natural selection.

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Evolutionary-Mystery-of/135762/"

 

[ginjawarrior]

See man you're not part of a solution, you're part of a problem!!! Genetic defect, who are you to say there is a genetic defect? Peruvian tribes deep in the jungle are for the most part bisexual, they bond with men and have gay acts with them while also having a wife. In a society far from "civilized world" and primitive as could be their bi sexual (lets not forget the romans and their butt sex). Gay is not a defect is natural and occurs far more often than is recognized because of people like you who see it as a DEFECT!!

You're answer is a backhanded acceptance... "Oh I except you for being defective", what the shit is that about? How many people get pregnant by accident or how many people have babies that should not are you glad when a 16 year old gets pregnant? I know plenty of straight people that are beyond baby making years and never had one are they as defective as gays? There are plenty of idiots having kids, too many kids for a million gays to affect our society by not reproducing... and hell those DEFECTIVE fuckers adopt that 16 year olds unwanted child, what awful people!!

Until People like you and to a higher level the truly intolerant change their tunes children will continue to be molested by men/women who are in the public eye "straight". Look at Penn State, you had a man of high power married with kids but a closet gay but because of our intolerant society he just can't be openly gay so he preyed on the young and weak no doubt black mailing them to stay quiet... this worked for 20 years. I'm not saying if everyone excepted gay/bisexuals this wouldn't happen, I am saying if everyone excepted gay/bisexuals it would happen LESS because people would just be open to say "Hey I love my wife and my family but sometimes I like to smoke a little pole" That is something marriage counseling and the couple can work out but it's not for the church or radicals to figure out for them!!

Hmmm your as bad a part of the problem if not worse if your comparing paedophile cunts like Sandusky to "closet gays"

 

[Greatest I am]

Simple evolutionary advantage. The better-bonded tribes have a bigger stake in making it. It is the Creationist simplistic overlay to posit that sex is only for reproduction. Sex is the directest diplomacy, the exercise of social power.

Thanks for the laugh.

I did not know that gays bonded better than heterosexuals.

So to you, not having the desire to reproduce in it’s members,something that would cause the species to go extinct, is a benefit to survival.

Let us see your argument for your view please.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

How was it ever deemed a genetic defect?How do you know that it isnt one of natures processes for species preservation by more or less regulating the populating human species?What causes people to be gay?Exposure to sexual hormones while in the womb during critical periods of brain developement has been known to later influence sexual orientation.Why dose one assume it to be a defect in genetics when it very well may not be a defect in genetics whatsoever>?Homosexuality could very well be another form of natural selection,,,would that seem to be to far fetched?

Yes as they are selected not to reproduce. Something that all who wish to pass on their genetics do. IOW, all living creatures.

Strange that you would blame chemistry and defects in genetics, which is the same as a DNA defect, more or less, yet do not accept that it is a DNA defect.

Regards
DL

 

[ginjawarrior]

Thanks for the laugh.

I did not know that gays bonded better than heterosexuals.

So to you, not having the desire to reproduce in it’s members,something that would cause the species to go extinct, is a benefit to survival.

Let us see your argument for your view please.

Regards
DL

Bolded part is wrong humans are not going extinct due to homosexuality

Your also making the mistake that any changes in DNA have to be beneficial.

 

[Greatest I am]

This appears to be a version of the "gaps" argument, which is a very common tactic for those defending pseudoscience and nonsense. The idea is that because there exists a gap in our knowledge that it somehow becomes okay to fill it with your pet idea. What you need is actual support for your idea, not just a lack of competing explanation. The problem here is that actual geneticists do not take the same position. People who understand genetic defects far better than you or I ever will still consider it a mystery, which conflicts with your attitude that genetic defect is a forgone conclusion. Genetics obviously play a part, but to say homosexuality is a defect is to grossly oversimplify the evidence./"

If genetics play a part then DNA is also and as the controllerof what the entities genetics will be, controls, with it’s defective DNA whetherthe entity will be gay or not. If gay, in a species that need sex between thesexes to propagate itself, then that DNA line will die out.

You say I use DNA defect as my God of the Gaps. I will giveyou that. Do you have something better for me to put in that Gap?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Bolded part is wrong humans are not going extinct due to homosexuality

I agree completely.

I was indicating that not having a desire to reproduce isnot a good trait for a species that depends on a desire to reproduce to sustainitself.

Your also making the mistake that any changes in DNA have to be beneficial.

I was indicating exactly that my friend. That change to gayness is not a benefit.

Regards
DL

 

[ginjawarrior]

I was indicating exactly that my friend. That change to gayness is not a benefit.

Regards
DL

No you were calling it a defect as in something wrong

a new study, published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, found a correlation between gay men and their mothers and maternal aunts, who are prone to have significantly more children compared to the maternal relatives of straight men.Researchers led by Andrea Camperio Ciani, from the University of Padova in Italy, say that the findings of the link between homosexuality and female fertility strongly support the "balancing selection hypothesis," which suggests that a gene which causes homosexuality also leads to high fecundity or reproduction among their female relatives.
The team noted that the "gay man gene" may not get passed down directly, but instead survive through the generations through future generations making their male inheritors gay

http://www.medicaldaily.com/gay-gene-survived-evolution-it-carried-mothers-who-have-more-children-study-240813

»

 

[Greatest I am]

No you were calling it a defect as in something wrong



http://www.medicaldaily.com/gay-gene-survived-evolution-it-carried-mothers-who-have-more-children-study-240813

»[/FONT][/COLOR]

Interesting. I will have to do some reading.

As to calling it a defect. I will continue to do so as in aspecies like ours, if too many had that defect, we would go extinct.

Regards
DL

 

[ginjawarrior]

Interesting. I will have to do some reading.

As to calling it a defect. I will continue to do so as in aspecies like ours, if too many had that defect, we would go extinct.

Regards
DL

no you'll continue saying it because your a bigot not because of any higher reasoning like you claim

 

[Heisenberg]

If genetics play a part then DNA is also and as the controllerof what the entities genetics will be, controls, with it’s defective DNA whetherthe entity will be gay or not. If gay, in a species that need sex between thesexes to propagate itself, then that DNA line will die out.

I suppose you will have to define the term "defect". Homosexuality is a difference, and one that evolution doesn't seem to mind considering that it has been preserved rather than filtered out. You apparently did not read the article which would suggest that when it comes to having an informed opinion, you are not so great.

Do you have something better for me to put in that Gap?

Humility and a true reflection of the state of the evidence coupled with cogent reasoning and the willingness to say "I don't know" rather than "i'll turn to my presupposed ideology."

 

[Greatest I am]

I suppose you will have to define the term "defect". Homosexuality is a difference, and one that evolution doesn't seem to mind considering that it has been preserved rather than filtered out. You apparently did not read the article which would suggest that when it comes to having an informed opinion, you are not so great.



Humility and a true reflection of the state of the evidence coupled with cogent reasoning and the willingness to say "I don't know" rather than "i'll turn to my presupposed ideology."

Life creates for the best possible end for a species. Notfor the least possible end. It always does as good as it can, giventhe DNA and other conditions at hand.

In a reproducing species like man, being gay is not a bestpossible end.

The reason that evolution has not bread that out is becauseit is a defect in the DNA that it cannot prevent. There is no gay gene to weedout.

If science shows that it is a part of our DNA for thebenefits shown in that article, then I will move to that POV.

Regards
DL

 

[ginjawarrior]

Life creates for the best possible end for a species.

No

Notfor the least possible end. It always does as good as it can, giventhe DNA and other conditions at hand.

No

In a reproducing species like man, being gay is not a bestpossible end.

No

The reason that evolution has not bread that out is becauseit is a defect in the DNA that it cannot prevent. There is no gay gene to weedout.

No

I like how you think its in DNA but not genes...

If science shows that it is a part of our DNA for thebenefits shown in that article, then I will move to that POV.

Regards
DL

I doubt that very much

 

[Heisenberg]

Life creates for the best possible end for a species. Notfor the least possible end. It always does as good as it can, giventhe DNA and other conditions at hand.

This is not an argument, it's an assertion, and one that doesn't seem to be backed up with any sort of data. As such, it requires no refutation, only a contradiction. Life does not create for the best possible end for a species.

In a reproducing species like man, being gay is not a bestpossible end.

Whether being gay is the best possible situation or not is irrelevant considering that this depends on your previous flawed assertion to make any sense.

The reason that evolution has not bread that out is becauseit is a defect in the DNA that it cannot prevent. There is no gay gene to weedout.

Ah so the problem isn't in our genetics, it's in our genes. If this is the best you can muster to explain your position then I would have to guess that you have never really taken the time to deeply think about your position before. You have made intuitive guesses informed by your limited understanding without regard to the idea that just because it makes sense to you and jives with your worldview, it may not reflect the science.

 

[sunni]

Let’s ignore the rest of your rant for now.

If not a genetic defect, then what cause people to be gay?

Regards
DL

i have nothing to said either than i dont like you. welcome to riu though

 

[Greatest I am]

To think that placing non-reproduction in a system that requires reproduction to sustain itself is the best of all out comes for that' species is quite foolish. It would go extinct if widespread. DNA works by switches being turned on or off. To turn off the reproduction switch is definitely not the best possible end.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

i have nothing to said either than i dont like you. welcome to riu though

I will grow on you. Regards DL

 

[ginjawarrior]

To think that placing non-reproduction in a system that requires reproduction to sustain itself is the best of all out comes for that' species is quite foolish. It would go extinct if widespread. DNA works by switches being turned on or off. To turn off the reproduction switch is definitely not the best possible end.

Regards
DL

No

10 charaters