Homophobia

I think you misunderstood my point. My point was at the last month prior birth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you acknowledge that people don't choose to be gay?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, the fetus will still be in the uterus then. (The uterus is the bag in the mommy's tummy that holds the baby.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

REPLAY TO James R post # 96

Are you worried that homosexual people might make you turn gay if they "propagate" their sexuality at you?
As for me it it not going to affect me . but for future generation does not looks good . I have children and hopefully they will have children , and would like that they be as normal human .

I don't approve: "Is it ok for Beyonce, say, to flounce around on stage wearing very little? Would that be flaunting her sexuality at all? Or not? Is it ok for heterosexual people to flaunt their sexuality?"
" How do you know ? Homosexuals are product of the environment , I make a judgement based on some observation during my life and I am way over 65

That was my reply to a poster . which say " straight produce gay people "

 

Dont play a funny game of been a smart .
You know . A normal male have an XY chromosome and a female have XX so you tell me what does what kind if chromosomal paring does a homosexual have

 

Depends. Is the homosexual in question male or female?

 

Male homosexuals are XY, female homosexuals are XX.

Now here's a question for you. A normal male is XX and a normal female is XY. What sort of sex chromosomes do sickle cell anemia carriers have?

 

You are playing a stupid game or is it a fast typing error . In sickle cell a mutation have taken place were an A in the DNA to a T and what does that have to do with homosexuals ? I think definitively you are playing a game that you think you are so smart .
I had a higher respect for you but after this you are just a schwanz

 

That's my point. Innate sexual orientation and sickle cell anemia are not caused by having something other than than XX or XY chromosomes. Such information is encoded autosomally, not on the allosome.

If I knew what that meant I"d probably be properly offended, but as it is it sounds like you called me a hot dog.

 

gays suck.
would you like serrated with that?
wait, let me guess . . . nevermind, i'll wait for it.

 

Absolutely, though I wonder if you were asking about homosexuals or homosexual behaviour. It is true that 6 million Jews were systematically killed in ww2 but that doesnt mean jewish murderers or rapists dont exist. So if there is something worth criticism about a homosexual, it should be criticised. However, what homosexual behaviour do you refer to?

 

What do you mean? Humans, like all social species, have a wide range of individual both socially desirable and not. Whether or not they happen to be in minority, is, in this case, irrelavant.

 

Indeed. Its that old religious argument about offense. People are not entitled to having the world be as they would want it. No one has the right to not be offended. That is why I would die to protect Westbro Baptist's right to say the shit they do - even though I deeply hate it.

 

Why not? You will find that this flaunt is constituationally protected and ought to be as its the freedom of expression, itself an extension of the freedom of speech. This flaunting is also a part of their social life and is central to their happiness. How many human rights are you willing to tread on for the sake of your irrationality?

Wow. Propogate, eh? They aren't a diseased group of our species. They dont spread - they are born to heterosexual parents. A bit more information if you like - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0

 

Um, sorry but I have to ask. Is 'homo' as bad a word as that? Why? Since when? I am really out of touch on this issue. I understand why words like "Fag" are as bad as say, the N word, but would Homo not be just an abbreviation of homosexual?

 

What do you think is the problem? I am unsure of it myself. While harmless hedonism is not really an issue, hygiene and emotional attachments are important issues. Care to share your opinion?

 

Exactly. This is sciforums and that is the question to be asked. Can someone please cite any articles which establish environmental [social, psycological, dietary, etc.] factors being the [as aracua suggests] dominant determinant of homosexuality? As far as I know, current research suggests a largely genetic determinism of homosexuality. The environmental effects seem to be largely biological [hormonal levels during embryonic development, etc] not social.

 

Well I have a counterexample - myself. As an introvert, I have never felt any social shame in being a mama's boy. My mom cuddled me till I was 14. Even now, about to turn 19, I still hug her and kiss her and am really close to her. And yet, I am straight. I also grew up in a social setting full of soapy emotions [my dad loves bollywood movies and a large portion of his business partners are Indian] and yet, I am straight. I am not even bisexual. I checked. Same time, successive days, 10 minutes of straight porn once and gay porn the second. Looks like your anecdote has been counter anecdoted. And we are still waiting of those research citiations that show non-biological environmental factors having any role [let alone a dominant one as you suggest] in the determinism of sexual orientation.