Homosexuality - Nature or Nurture?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You mean you're so stupid you've missed the numerous times I pointed our your lie?
You figure of 99.999...% IS the lie.

Oh that.

No, it's perfect example of your hideous spelling detracting from what you're trying to say.
The name was Dolly.

No I re-posted exactly what you said to show how much of a hypocrite you are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and the biggest troll on the thread is you

how about share the context, then provide your claim

chosing a partner is a choice thing, not a nature issue

nature just shares that copulation when observed naturally is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999%

for procreation of the species, that is having sex


animals don't chose sex for fun; people do

the instinct of living species to have sex is for procreation; deal with it!

but then i post the EXACT quote and it make you the hypocrit (as ooooosual)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

perhaps, since 'threats' rants and all the BS any can find within this whole issue of gays "nature or nurture"

is just not the best place for me; especially when no one can impose responsibility to each participant.

 

Wrong.
Or at least not 100% true.
Why do you fall in love with someone?

And you repeat the lie.

Another lie.

And sex for fun.

Wrong again, you're just showing your lack of comprehension.

 

I would like to add that part of the reason that the gay community was hit so hard by the epidemic, initially, is that society has never encouraged or supported us in forming long-term relationships. We were brutally forced into anonymous sex because it used to be very dangerous to keep seeing the same partner. The cruelty of society made it too painful to get emotionally attached to one person because we knew, one day, that person would be ripped away from us forever.

Well, I tend to think that there may be extremely subtle disadvantages to whatever factors play into heterosexuality. It could be that a small chance of homosexual offspring is a small price to pay for generally healthier offspring.

Yep. Our reputation for being child-rapers came from society's inability to accept that we were like this naturally. They ended up trying to attribute it to childhood trauma from being butt-raped by other gay people or seeing gay people holding hands affectionately.

We need more mods out there who are willing to nail people for being full of shit. Making a bunch of bullshit claims and using dodgy logic or red-herrings is something that I see as incredibly antagonistic. I see it as intentionally provocative behavior.

Yup. They always do. If you show them some examples of homosexuality in nature, they will end up making some kind of excuse, viz:

"Oh, they are inferior animals. They don't know any better, and SURELY must be a mistake. Just because animals lick their own nuts in public doesn't mean that humans should do it. LOL, being gay is like licking your nuts in public, LOL, you're so retarded, LOL this, LOL that."

LOL, homophobic scum are all the same. LOL, they're never going to change. LOL, maybe they're just genetically inferior human beings. LOL, let's round them all up and herd them into gas chambers. Don't worry, it's only a shower.

I don't care nearly as much about what you think of gay people as I care what you think of homophobic vermin. In fact, it's to my benefit if you don't even take notice of my sexual orientation. My sexual orientation does not exist. I should not bring it into the discussion unnecessarily. The homophobic scum-buckets who are making my life miserable DO exist. In fact, most of them are as much of a problem for heterosexual nerds as they are for gay people.

 

and those above are perfect examples to verify this

We need more mods out there who are willing to nail people for being full of shit. Making a bunch of bullshit claims and using dodgy logic or red-herrings is something that I see as incredibly antagonistic. I see it as intentionally provocative behavior.


now any can see why i have a difficult time dealing with the selfish

 

you do that all the fucking time.

Post some evidence, or shut your mouth.

 

You mean the importance of encouraging gay people to form permament, normal partnerships? How it hurts society as a whole if one group of people is deprived of the same rights that are accorded to others? Yep.

So I suppose you support gay adoption. Children in the household places a limiting factor on the amount of time that either partner in a couple is able to spend outside of the household. It also serves to limit the conduct that is likely to be allowed in the household. Furthermore, the presence of children in the household would serve to limit a couple's ability to split up.

As a result, you must believe that it is in the best interests of society to limit the spread of HIV in the gay community by encouraging gay people to marry and adopt children. It is the only way.

I guess you also believe that gay people should restrict themselves to sexual intercourse with other gay people. After all, if you are concerned about AIDS being transmitted from a gay man to a heterosexual woman, then you should be against gay men having sex with women at all. I guess this means you favor making a safe, comfortable environment for gay people being open about their sexual orientation, so they don't have to put up a false front to keep from having people raise questions about them. A real problem in the black community is that black, gay men form heterosexual relationships for the sake of image, and they get sexually transmitted diseases from seeking out anonymous gay sex (I get a few inquiries from black guys every month). They transmit these diseases to the women they are courting, which is often several, serially, because gay people can't usually form permanent relationships with the opposite sex.

 

wow look at the bigot in this thread, and i thought dealing with norse, LA and barron max in the other thread was bad. At least they are semicoherant even if there arguments lack reason and evidence but you take the cake.

Go home Fred Phelps

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Bishadi, are you unaware that dolphins and bonobos, to name but two examples, engage in sex for fun and community harmony. The reproductive benefits are almost a side issue. If you can be wrong on such a well established point do you not recognise you could be wrong on others. Or do you deny that dolphins and bonobos use sex for more than the reproductive purpose? If so would you care to post evidence supporting such a whimsical idea?

 

what cracks me up is that the people who study animals and human behaviour and societies etc... all seem to come to a fairly well based conclusion on homosexuality as a statistic.

these are people that devote their entire lifes to studying these things and have no vested interest in saying one way or the other.

yet all the religo nut bar fruit loop bible bashing hate preaching sexually dysfunctional chauvinistic women hating Armageddon seeking rapists seem to think they know better by reading some fellow inbred bigots book on how men rule the world and so must be the one penetrating everything to remain a manly man of god that was made better than women(according to their ideology and social mandate).

freakin nut bar luny genocidal maniacs is what they are.

they would have the great witch hunt again and kill off all independent out spoken women if they got half the chance.

 

That is a little bit unfair to Christians. I had a conservative Baptist room-mate a while back, and he was really very nice. He did admit to finding his religion's stance on gay sex to be confusing. They aren't all like the ignoramuses you see on forums.

 

yeah i know i had a best mate who was a baptist
ive grown up with Catholics
ive socialized with hindi, Buddhists and Muslims
even Christians dare i say it.

simplicity comes from a deep understanding of the complexities of life.

let moderation be moderate among those who seek secular co existence in a non violent frame work.

 

Unfortunately, Christianity is still the dominant religion of the age, and fakers and frauds will invariably be drawn by popular choice. They are image-seekers, not truth-seekers. It is no coincidence, then, that the fakers and frauds out there tend to be Christians. It is prudent, then, to acknowledge that, in a world in which styling oneself as a secular humanist makes society more accessible, fakers and frauds will be just as likely to seek it out. We should not be fooled by the fact that people who use religion as a fashion accessory almost invariably choose the most fashionable religion of the age.

Homosexuality should not make me fashionable. It should not make me popular or respected. It should not make me an object of pity. However, it does make me a minority. Unfortunately, there are those in our society, most of them fakers and frauds, who do not feel that they can get ahead in the world based on their own merits. In the interest of improving their prospects, then, they will try to isolate and pigeonhole the rest of us into different groups. They will label us "homosexual" or "black" or "foreign-born" or "born into poverty" or "born into wealth" or "too liberal" or "too conservative" or "not a member of the right religion or sect" or "a member of the wrong masonic lodge" or "not a member of the right masonic lodge" or "not married" or "not from the right state." They believe that, if they litter the field with enough barriers, there will eventually be nobody left to rule or be an object of admiration except for themselves, for they have isolated or excluded everybody else. Therefore, this is one minority that all of us minorities must do our best to isolate and exclude. If we fail to do so, there will be nobody left to rule us except for fakers, pretenders, and frauds.

Again, we must remember, in doing so, to avoid confusing fakers and frauds with people who happen to look like them. This is a little bit like excluding a black person based on the fact that there are individuals out there who are both black and guilty of felonious acts. It is like excluding a homosexual, such as from the right to marry, based on the fact that there are individuals out there who are both homosexual and incapable of handling the responsibility of marriage. There are extenuating circumstances for all three of these groups--conservative, white Christians; black people; and people who are homosexual or, as we prefer to call them in modern times, "gay"--that we should be aware of before we pass judgement or generalizations over these groups as if they were united, coordinated wholes.

It is also important for us, as secular humanists, to remember that we ourselves are vulnerable to our philosophy and our ideals being treated like a fashion accessory for shallow, selfish human beings who truly care nothing about where they come from. This is especially important for atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists to keep in mind, for in a way we have a social responsibility to do so. We are the fastest-growing demographic by religious self-identification, so it is a matter of the highest urgency to keep in mind that, in a way, the future is in our hands. If we allow individuals who are selfish and corrupt to seek out secular humanism or atheism as a source of face legitimacy, society will only continue having the same problems that it has always had.

I am sorry if this sounded like a political speech, but I have been watching this catfight over Sotomayor like it's the Superbowl, and I have only taken a break from doing so because my voice is getting hoarse from hooting and hollering like a demented hockey mom.

 

Awesome post :bravo: :worship:

having been raised in a home where god was a subject to be laughed at(in its express humanistic hypocrisy) and replaced by science i was never slanted to lean on anything except the fundermental question of
"what is the question?".
i woke to the fallacy of nurtured mental weakness through religious dogma at the age of 9 and have never stopped seeking new ways to learn.
during some of my more passionate years of study (up to 5 hours per day for some years) on UFO's Aliens and Alternate science etc etc...

i came across a type of person who calls them self a skeptic.

this self anointed position of supposed mental and reality superiority was taken on board by a type of person whos only concern was to destroy those around them to seek self validation.
THIS i feel is the same animal you mention.
i studied this personality type and its dynamic variances for some years.

you are well founded and quite right to seek to outline and identify these types of personalities.
Essentially they are the same no matter if they are following some religious group or some ultra atheistic near anarchist group.
you can tell who they are because they never actually build anything.

the test is simple.

ask them to create something that creates something.
all the can do at best is create something that destroys something.

 

normally people share that common sense naturally

but when people suggest society causes the self seeking to maintain multiple partners, then we all can see where the fibs lie

some groups have self isolated itself.

it can be observed by the fraudulent ideology.

what's that? (ooops, i guess you mean the selfish who have created a label for themselves)

anyone can be happy without having to identify themselves as different based on preference

 

sure; they are not thinking about it (instinct)

what evidence do you want that is greater than common sense?

otherwise i see animals killing other animals, which is more prevelant than your claims; does that make it OK to murder?


the evidence is clear; in nature the instinct is to procreate (as they are not thinking about it in any other way; unless of course you can prove that animals are consciously aware of what they are doing and can articulate it (like human beings)

 

no it aint......

which is what is occuring in the politics of the gay issue.

such is the community of folks selling same sex as normal

notice it is the religions that brings up the gay issu the most?

notice it is them xtians that will turn their head against the truth to appease the self seekers?

notice it is the morality issue within the church community that is the primary objective that the 'rights' seekers are attacking?

it is easy to crush theologies but reality does not bend!

and why the gay community has become so deeply rooted in the whole religious issue.

a minority to what? perhaps to ALL OF MOTHER NATURE?

otherwise no one knows your gay unless you represent it; which may make you a minority all based on your CHOICE; not biology.

share an example.

perhaps a person who dresses like a woman but is a man?

perhaps a person that knows (most) all life comes from procreation between opposite sex, but tries to represent otherwise?

perhaps someone who is of one sex and likes to fake being the other sex during intercourse?

sure anyone can identify the fakers and frauds!

 

Wrong.

That would be "transvestite" not homosexual. Two different things.

Correct, but who's claimed that?
Strawman.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You watch people having sex?