(August 12, 2015 at 10:54 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(August 12, 2015 at 10:15 am)Ace Wrote: [...]it so it does not matter what I think.[...]

There you go.    I knew you'd finally get there, sport. Now - please - could you pass this on to as many of your angry closet-buddies as you can?

Been saying that for some time now, so interesting you just now seen it. But you also do know that my statement was general in that the I in single or small group. Thus making it apply to people on this form as well. Because you can sing that damn song, (we are the world) as long as you want and think you are but, the truth is that you are not "the damn world at all." (wonder if you will get that)

Hahaha your assuming that they think that their own ideas don't matter to them or that they give a damn about what the world thinks.  We all live in the big world but it's our own little world that we have made that truly counts  

(August 12, 2015 at 11:27 am)robvalue Wrote: Being prepared to nuke the entire gay community rather than simply come out is a bit extreme.

And no, it's not an insult, it's an observation based on experience.

Experience' !!! wow, so you have been in a nuclear? hmm must have been some side testing being done. Cause histrionically there is the testing in the late 1930's and some in the 50's and then some accidents in the 80's  90's and one this year by North Korea.

But all those we on either people we were at war with, for testing or accidents. Never heard of a nuclear attack on gay's before.

(August 12, 2015 at 11:27 am)robvalue Wrote: . . . .anyone who spends this much time agonising over what gays do to each other is very likely actually gay/bisexual themself. Being prepared to nuke the entire gay community rather than simply come out is a bit extreme.

Hahah no, of course you mean no insult. . .    



However,  and I think this comparison was already made to you . . . .But, can it not be said that anyone who is spends much time agonizing over what religious people do, is very likely actually religious themselves? Can I not say that deep inside you to are full of "God fearing faith" and that you quietly attend or are a member of a cult like religious organization? Hmmmmm? You need to break out and be free a little, there? Hmmmm?

Also, could I not say that  second, it is most likely going on here is that you've both been "educated" by the same/similar people, who have indoctrinated you heavily with ideas of hate, lies, slurs, anti-discrimination thoughts  about the religious? Hmmmm

Shhh, there, there, don't worry I will not tell anyone about your true secret.

Side note: I don't ever remember say any homosexual slurs, but I guess what was not considered a one time is now.

(August 12, 2015 at 11:27 am)robvalue Wrote: I have no power to change forum rules, nor would I want to.

  HaHaha man that is very good to hear and know!! I will say you had me tripping there!
[/quote]

(August 11, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Iroscato Wrote: Who the fuck are you to call being gay a defect?

Who am I? Well I am one who has considered the argument. So let us enumerate it here for those of you who have not so considered the argument.

If I am to accept the argument that one is born gay and it is not a psychological issue; and I am to further accept that even animals are born gay than we may determine the the question in terms of genetic trait or mutation for any and all species, be they human or animal.

Now contrary to the argument that homos may reproduce (which implies they do so readily) the majority of homos in any given species come from heteros. With that said heteros commonly give birth to heteros such that we may say homos comprise 10% of the birthed population of any given species (unless we are assuming homo has a higher rate of miscarriage or infant mortality, which really does not follow from being homo per se).

Since the majority of homos come from heteros (by this I would venture to say +90% if not 100% of homos come from heteros in any given species) it may be said homo is either a recessive genetic trait of the hetero or a genetic mutation. If we consider it to be a a recessive genetic trait we would stipulate it should manifest approximately 25% of the time in any given species while we only observe homosexuality manifesting 10% of the time.

Furthermore, if it were a genetic trait there should be a statistical significance of it being prevalent in a specific biological species or sub-group and not ubiquitous across many biological species or groups. To my understanding the general argument is homosexuality is ubiquitous across numerous species and biological sub-groups within a given species and is not statistically significant in any particular specie or biological sub-group. Now if I am to accept this argument of ubiquity across species and sub-groups than it may be said such is not a genetic trait which shall be prevalent in some species or groups and non-existent in others, but rather a genetic mutation which will be manifest across numerous species and sub-groups.

Now if we are to argue the subject of genetic mutation we may define the categories. Adaptive, ineffective, and defective. Where an adaptive genetic mutation shall facilitate the biological subsistence and propagation of the mutation; an ineffective genetic mutation shall not facilitate or impinge the biological subsistence and propagation of the mutation; and a defective genetic mutation shall impinge the biological subsistence and propagation of the mutation. Where adaptations are to be promoted, ineffections are to be ignored, and defections are to be preempted or avoided.

(NOTE: Consideration is given to subsistence as such is required to reach the point of propagation. It may be said the goal of any given genetic mutation is continuous propagation. Thus in regard to any given genetic mutation propagation is the essential evaluation of quality. This is to say genetic mutation which increase propagation is an adaptation; that impinges propagation is a defect; regardless of its impact on subsistence. In the event the mutation has no positive or negative impact upon propagation than it may be determined as adaptive, ineffective, or defective in terms of its positive or negative impact upon subsistence).

Now we shall consider a mutation in terms of biological subsistence and propagation. For example if we are to take people who are left handed. Does this left handed mutation facilitate or impede biological subsistence? Readily the answer is left handedness does not facilitate or impede biological subsistence; thus in this regard it is ineffectual and to be ignore. We then ask if left handedness facilitates or impedes biological propagation? Once again the answer is left handedness does not facilitate or impede biological propagation of any given species or sub-group and may be considered ineffectual; ergo ignored. As such it may be stated that left handedness is an ineffective genetic mutation. Since it is ineffective there is no need to promote or eliminate it and it may simply be ignored.

We must then ask if the genetic mutation giving rise to homosexuality facilitates biological subsistence and propagation of the mutation or not. In regards to biological subsistence it may be readily said the genetic mutation giving rise to homosexuality is ineffectual; for it neither facilitates nor impedes biological subsistence of any given species or sub-group (we are excluding situation in which an given species of animal kills its own offspring upon "sensing" a genetic mutation). However, in regards to propagation of the mutation we may say the genetic mutation giving rise to homosexuality greatly impedes self propagation in numerous species and sub-groups and may be considered defective. Thus it is recognize that homosexuality is a defect to be preempted or avoided when possible.

(August 12, 2015 at 3:03 am)Neimenovic Wrote: You didn't answer me, Anima. What of bisexuals?

I apologize. What was your question?

If the question is state recognition of bisexuals it may be said, in like manner to homosexuals, the state appreciates your heterosexual inclinations and activities from which it derives a benefit and has no need of your homosexual inclination and activities where no benefit is derived by the state.

(August 12, 2015 at 12:14 pm)Ace Wrote:

(August 12, 2015 at 11:27 am)robvalue Wrote: . . . .anyone who spends this much time agonising over what gays do to each other is very likely actually gay/bisexual themself. Being prepared to nuke the entire gay community rather than simply come out is a bit extreme.

Hahah no, of course you mean no insult. . .    



However,  and I think this comparison was already made to you . . . .But, can it not be said that anyone who is spends much time agonizing over what religious people do, is very likely actually religious themselves? Can I not say that deep inside you to are full of "God fearing faith" and that you quietly attend or are a member of a cult like religious organization? Hmmmmm? You need to break out and be free a little, there? Hmmmm?  

Also, could I not say that  second, it is most likely going on here is that you've both been "educated" by the same/similar people, who have indoctrinated you heavily with ideas of hate, lies, slurs, anti-discrimination thoughts  about the religious? Hmmmm

  Shhh, there, there, don't worry I will not tell anyone about your true secret.

HA HA!

While I like the ad hominem attack supported by anecdotal evidence Robo, such is most assuredly not the case on my part.

However, I do confess I took the time to thoroughly discuss this issue with a gay gentlemen a few years ago. I believe we spent a month discussing the issue back and forth. Contrary to what is expressed on this board by many I wanted to understand his position and arguments. So I gave him the utmost respect of giving what he had to say proper consideration and contemplation. You know...What bigots do.

(August 12, 2015 at 12:43 pm)Anima Wrote:

---

(August 11, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Iroscato Wrote: Who the fuck are you to call being gay a defect?

Who am I?  Well I am one who has considered the argument.  So let us enumerate it here for those of you who have not so considered the argument.

If I am to accept the argument that one is born gay and it is not a psychological issue; and I am to further accept that even animals are born gay than we may determine the the question in terms of genetic trait or mutation for any and all species, be they human or animal.  

Now contrary to the argument that homos may reproduce (which implies they do so readily) the majority of homos in any given species come from heteros.  With that said heteros commonly give birth to heteros such that we may say homos comprise 10% of the birthed population of any given species (unless we are assuming homo has a higher rate of miscarriage or infant mortality, which really does not follow from being homo per se).  

Since the majority of homos come from heteros (by this I would venture to say +90% if not 100% of homos come from heteros in any given species)  it may be said homo is either a recessive genetic trait of the hetero or a genetic mutation.  If we consider it to be a a recessive genetic trait we would stipulate it should manifest approximately 25% of the time in any given species while we only observe homosexuality manifesting 10% of the time.  

Furthermore, if it were a genetic trait there should be a statistical significance of it being prevalent in a specific biological species or sub-group and not ubiquitous across many biological species or groups.  To my understanding the general argument is homosexuality is ubiquitous across numerous species and biological sub-groups within a given species and is not statistically significant in any particular specie or biological sub-group.  Now if I am to accept this argument of ubiquity across species and sub-groups than it may be said such is not a genetic trait which shall be prevalent in some species or groups and non-existent in others, but rather a genetic mutation which will be manifest across numerous species and sub-groups.

Now if we are to argue the subject of genetic mutation we may define the categories.  Adaptive, ineffective, and defective.  Where an adaptive genetic mutation shall facilitate the biological subsistence and propagation of the mutation; an ineffective genetic mutation shall not facilitate or impinge the biological subsistence and propagation of the mutation; and a defective genetic mutation shall impinge the biological subsistence and propagation of the mutation.  Where adaptations are to be promoted, ineffections are to be ignored, and defections are to be preempted or avoided.

(NOTE:  Consideration is given to subsistence as such is required to reach the point of propagation.  It may be said the goal of any given genetic mutation is continuous propagation.  Thus in regard to any given genetic mutation propagation is the essential evaluation of quality.  This is to say genetic mutation which increase propagation is an adaptation; that impinges propagation is a defect; regardless of its impact on subsistence.  In the event the mutation has no positive or negative impact upon propagation than it may be determined as adaptive, ineffective, or defective in terms of its positive or negative impact upon subsistence).

Now we shall consider a mutation in terms of biological subsistence and propagation.  For example if we are to take people who are left handed.  Does this left handed mutation facilitate or impede biological subsistence?  Readily the answer is left handedness does not facilitate or impede biological subsistence; thus in this regard it is ineffectual and to be ignore.  We then ask if left handedness facilitates or impedes biological propagation?  Once again the answer is left handedness does not facilitate or impede biological propagation of any given species or sub-group and may be considered ineffectual; ergo ignored.  As such it may be stated that left handedness is an ineffective genetic mutation.  Since it is ineffective there is no need to promote or eliminate it and it may simply be ignored.

We must then ask if the genetic mutation giving rise to homosexuality facilitates biological subsistence and propagation of the mutation or not.  In regards to biological subsistence it may be readily said the genetic mutation giving rise to homosexuality is ineffectual; for it neither facilitates nor impedes biological subsistence of any given species or sub-group (we are excluding situation in which an given species of animal kills its own offspring upon "sensing" a genetic mutation).  However, in regards to propagation of the mutation we may say the genetic mutation giving rise to homosexuality greatly impedes self propagation in numerous species and sub-groups and may be considered defective.  Thus it is recognize that homosexuality is a defect to be preempted or avoided when possible.

---

So, you are an advocate for eugenics as well as a raging closeted homophobe. You can dress up your deeply-ingrained desire to murder teh gayz with as many 'considers' and 'hypotheticals' as you like, the fact remains you hold the belief that exterminating gay people simply for being gay is an option on the table.

"For the good of the species!"

Bullshit. It's to satisfy the intolerance of despondent wastes of carbon like yourself who are so at war with themselves they seek a way to reflect their own inadequacies on other people or groups. Always has been, and it always will be, despite your sugar-coating thanks to your total lack of spine to even articulate what you really want.

You can't exterminate gay people anyway. Lord knows Christianity and Islam have tried long enough.

It's not as simple as "gay people make gay children" and "straight people make straight children". If it is genetic, it's more than likely a gene people can carry without actually exhibiting the trait e.g you can be a straight person who, although straight, carries "the gay gene". This is assuming such a gene exists.

(August 12, 2015 at 12:56 pm)Anima Wrote:

(August 12, 2015 at 3:03 am)Neimenovic Wrote: You didn't answer me, Anima. What of bisexuals?

I apologize.  What was your question?

If the question is state recognition of bisexuals it may be said, in like manner to homosexuals, the state appreciates your heterosexual inclinations and activities from which it derives a benefit and has no need of your homosexual inclination and activities where no benefit is derived by the state.

So....

exterminate only half of me? ._.

CONFUZZED.

Anima is actualy using a little of Niche's ideas. You know, the guy that atheists love, that guy who did away with God in Human sociology, philosophy and in nature. As well as some Darwin.

He is not saying anything different or new.

However, if homosexuality iis argued as natural then don't we have to say that we are speaking of genetics. If not what are we talking about when it is said it is nature? To what the blood, the flesh, organs, our thoughts, brain waves. If not genetics, then what do you mean by natural ?

(August 12, 2015 at 1:58 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: Lord knows Christianity and Islam have.

They have? What genocid, ( the name of it) was this one? And what year?
The question is for both religions, if you can.