Homosexual Marriage (last part)

life aint about looks. Love aint about looks. And sex aint about either.

Are you depressed too?

than you? I can see that!

to you, choice is irrelevant!

but you want the choice to marry whatever you choose.

there's that circle jerk thing again

i know, choice is the qualifier. you just cant see it.

at least in nature, i wouldnt have people lying to me.

nothing genetic about homosexual CHOICES. The genetic aspect is the desire to procreate and basically what sex is for, naturally speaking of course.

Epigenetics is about environment and i remember making a claim about how 'temp' is relative and you simply denied that too. Have you ever read anything on energy homeostasis?

wrong to the nature of the LIFE; absolutely.

The lies about it being natural is the immoral part. i could care less what religious wingnut believe on the matter as to me it is them pedophile preachers and many wingnut preachers that have this subject on the forefront. you should step back on picking on the religious negation as it is them idiots that will married anything for a buck and make it seem all sweet and loving.

i know, but to this day and the community still cant teach the children what 'gravity' is.

ie.... science evolves and often what people are led to believe is found incorrect, at each progression.

likewise, you may think monkeys doing the same sex thing means its natural but leave out the idea it is often based on frustration, just like in dolphins and many other species.

i am thinking that is why you keep coming to the thread; frustrated

homosexual is 'single' (one) or same sex preference............ I think you got yourself in a trick bag there.

you are telling me, that now from egypt same sex had a sacred gang and the majority on the earth will not publish that ahkenatan could be moses himself?

you might as well bring in the spartans and talk about their soldiers but then have to concede that marriage was for procreation and lineage protection, of course

 

You have no concept of preference and how it works, do you?

No, but I have a fulfilling life that doesn't involve concocting barely sapient theories about sexuality.

You're obviously more closely aligned with amphibians and fish than the animals with telencephalons.

No, the example you brought up is.

And? Who cares about that, other than raging bigots? Oh no! People of different races are intermarrying! They're compromising certain, minor aspects of naturally selected phenotypes that increase fitness under certain environmental constraints!

There's that repression thing of yours again. You should seriously get that checked.

Consent is, actually, at least with sex.

Your projection issues are simply astounding.

However, again, I'm hardly the one lying. I'm providing evidence, you provide the shrill keen of your voice and naught else.

Yes there are. I've provided the evidence, and you can't even provide something resembling a counter-argument for it beyond "WAAAAAAAH! NUH-UH!" It's like arguing with my three year old, minus the beginnings of rationality.

And if you were actually literate, you would have seen that some aspects of homosexuality are mediated by genes that increase fecundity up to a point. Bodies are mules for genetic code and don't care about the body they're in: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2105#comic (yes, it's a comic, but it illustrates the point well enough and succinctly enough)

Epigenetics is about how various stimuli affect the genetic codes regulation of alleles (either through up-regulation or down-regulation). Homeostatic effects are more often controlled through feedback loops which are based on already existing cellular machinery. I've taken actual physiology courses, rather than getting a BA in Google with a minor in Wikipedia.

Not really. Again, the various alleles contributing to homosexual phenotype increase fitness in other ways, either through close relatives or other mechanisms as shown in other papers that you're too lazy or uncomprehending to figure out.

Again: found across most animal phyla that have discrete sexes. Ergo, natural.

We're much less incorrect now than 1000 years ago.

Even when they preferentially have sex with males when females are available and nothing is there to dissuade them from having sex with females. Yeah, sounds like frustration to me.

Yes, frustrated at bloviating blowhards who don't know what they're talking about and insulting and disrespecting several close friends and relatives.

Θῆβαι of Βοιωτία; I thought you knew a (*)(*)(*)(*)load of history there, buddy. The city-state of Thebes established them as their elite troops and they were the only part of the Theban army that did not surrender or retreat from Philip II of Macedon's army during his capture of Thebes.

However, this proves that I'm more familiar in at least two subjects than you can ever hope to be.

In that instance, yeah, but there are a ton of other cultures as well, you realize.

 

Also: where's your evidence? You've yet to provide a single, solitary thing that isn't your own Stygian howling.

 

sure. Example; i prefer to view your posts as 'stupid' based on 'selfishly imposed ignorance'

That be my preference.

And i bet that taste is among the majority

You be the one regressing; unique situations within animals are your example to represent that same sex encounters are HOMOSEXUAL intercourse that is normal.

I use the sapient mind evolved over beliefs and selfish pursuits.

was that a weak attempt at an insult?

no compromising, in volved; it's the choices of them folks. Apparently you dont like self control or the idea of having the choice of controlling your actions.

Do you walk by schools and have uncontrollable arousals too?

you may be a mule and have no choice. As well you are proving the antagonostic approach.

Did you know the mule is also an infertile beast based on crossing lines?

what stimuli??

What are the molecular mechanisms?

my physiology work was combined with physics to the molecular basis of how mass and energy work.

So when you can return to the foundations of how the allele changes to the molecule level, then you can sustain your claim. Otherwise, you are on a thread about the oxymoron (homosexual marriage) and using animals to tell it it is normal and cannot sustain the epigenetics thesis with much more than opinion and data representing your false pretenses.

it is like claiming that because jesus was said to walk on water, he is god.

When a guy like me can show that anyone can walk on water.

just freeze it first!

that is like claiming a cleft palet is the better trait for sucking on a straw

share that paper. I would like to see that.

if the friends and relatives are enabling and supporting a liar, they should be slapped versus just insulted. Then if it continues in your style of irresponsibility, then shot. i have compassion for error, but no pity for the wicked.

like taking it in the butt and that an extinct population is an example of queers in the military?!?!?!?

aint dat smaught... woooo

perhaps like the market street gang, where anyone can buy 6" pumps in size 12 mens

i guess it makes them more beautiful!

 

Says the guy who cannot properly use capital letters, punctuation, or evidence.

Or proper verb conjugation, among other things.

The majority of people in the US are ignorant of the workings of biology. The majority's thoughts on certain ideas are not necessarily the best.

Define "normal," firstly. However, given that it is found among a small but certain percentage of most animals with discrete sexes indicates that it is normal in the sense that it occurs on a relatively frequent basis (a certain percentage of individuals during each generation) and does not really interfere with a population's ability to survive.

Not really, no. You've provided jack-all squat in terms of evidence and can't provide an argument of any sort that doesn't boil down to "NUH-UH!"

Was that a weak attempt at producing intelligible English?

Apparently I have to simplify things as I would for my toddler: phenotypes of people ("ethnicities" and/or "races" of people have certain traits that evolved as best suited for local environments; Eskimos and Inuits, for instance, have short limbs, torsos with lower surface to volume ratios, and a respiratory system that warms air before reaching the lungs) are suited toward local environments, ethnic mixing eliminates that. I was thus making fun of your position that gay sex ruins procreation by pointing out that a morally neutral choice (one's mate's ethnicity) has some ramifications for fitness (relative amounts of energy used to survive in a given location on earth).

That you needed that explained to you says a great deal in and of itself.

Implication that I'm a pedophile? Stay classy there, Bishadi.

However, you'll note that I'm big on consent, which children are unable to give. Ergo, I think pedophilia when acted upon is morally incorrect.

Whoops, used a few big words there: CHILD MOLESTATION BAD! There, that something you can comprehend?

Apparently you can't understand basic English usage: mule can also mean a person or object that is used to carry something else around, such as a "drug mule" or a "genetic mule."

Did you know that words can have multiple meanings based on metaphor and simile that are not necessarily identical to their original meaning?

Various chemical cues, mainly, such as hormones, hormone mimics (many pesticides excel at this, leading to intersex frogs), and the like. UV radiation can also act as a stimulus leading to epigenetic effects, namely through the creation of thymine dimers in the DNA which are repaired (50% of the correct repair happening!), which can result in cancer. There are other stimuli, however, most of them that matter occur during early development because then it affects how cell differentiation, which affects organ development and growth.

Homeostasis is a very complex entity, however, we'll take the Na+ and K+ gradient as an example: a neuron, for instance, has a number of active Na+/K+/ATP pumps studding the phospholipid bilayer of the cell. The pump pumps out a certain number of Na+ ions (3, as I recall) (because there are other passive Na+ pumps pumping in Na+), while the pump's reciprocal action pumps in 2 K+ ions and uses 1 ATP per pumping cycle. Ion gradients are thus maintained because the process pumps ions in at a set ratio to maintain homeostasis of ions. Any number of other homeostatic processes are similar.

Suuuuure, and I've won 4 Nobel prizes in Physiology and 2 in Economics.

So, you claim to be a scientist and disparage DATA to support a thesis? HAHAHAHAHAHA, you're god(*)(*)(*)(*) funny.

Plus, most scientists I know can properly use English.

Except, you know, there's actual data and evidence involved.

http://www.flexiblephenotype.org/Bailey and Zuk 2009 Same sex behaviour.pdf

It's also seen where same-sex contact is preferred over opposite sex in many animals in bovidae.

I would say start slapping yourself, but you sound like you already engage in more than adequate amounts of self-abuse.

Biology and history, actually. And basic use of the English language would be a third category.

 

it is how this issue has divided sexual orientation from the biology of the life.

Sex evolved for the life to procreate, not for fun.

You must be edumacated to write that.

I can see that. So go jump off a bridge, We will all survive, quite nicely without you.

You have claimed you have no choice of your sexuality. I asked if you walked by a school, if you got arroused.

I was just reading what you were ranting and was pointing out, if you just that weak that you could not control your drive, perhaps you should be watched. Maybe a ankle braclet should be on you for daily monitoring of your whereabouts.

So is lying to them and conveying lies that can damage them.

I mean, if you tell a child that men sucking eachs others winkie is normal, than perhaps sleep overs with your "toddlers" would never be the same.

Heck, preachers are supposed to be trustworthy, like you edumacated type, but now a days, liars come in all forms and you telling me and this forum that your sexual preferences are not by your choice, is scary.

Mind f'ing aint good either. That means in basic common sense words "No misleading reality". And the example is;.... gender is what defines the sexual orientation of a life.

Nothing to debate!

Or how about the moron that carries lies around and spreads them, could that be a dum mule too?

Sure. Good represents an honest person.

Being a good liar, aint good!

like i said, the 'heat' can affect the mass and the molecular combinations.

ie.... heat is just an environments measurement, but what causes the 'heat' of all mass is the wavelengths of energy (UV is em (light))

I was not trying to blow you out of the water with big words like 'electromagnetic radiation' and the comprehension that 'heat' is from em upon mass causing it to resonate.

My point, energy as in the wavelengths present are what cause mass to create protiens and the dna and your allele are affected directly based on them 'wavelengths' present; the environment. I know it is a little technical to identify the 'environment' as in the 'wavelengths' present, but I often expect that someone knowing anything about physiology would comprehend the molecular environment is what causes the changes and variations during a lifes processes.

i cant believe you are using that as your renderance of 'energy' homeostasis


wow..................

let me assist you: resonant energy transfer is how the energy conveys across the lipid bilayers.

them gradients are for morons

 

So I assume you only ever have sex with the purpose of having a baby?

Didn't think so.

Why is it wrong for two men to engage in oral sex, but its okay for a man and a woman to? Oral sex doesn't lead to procreation, you said yourself that the purpose of sex is to procreate. So you should believe that oral sex and any other form of sex that doesn't involve penetration is immoral and wrong.

But it seems that many people think that homosexual sex is wrong and abnormal, but that there is nothing wrong with oral sex. Can't imagine why.

 

nope and you assumed correctly. My point was the biology of them parts are for procreation not for a person to learn or be taught what them parts are for. Natures choice is made at birth/embryotic stages.

. I personally am good at face and facing the fact that I don't see the sexual issue as the best subject to share a morality example but lying is not ok. And you know it!!!

I don't use or convey that argument and YOU know that too. I have said more times than most

 

For anyone who's interested, I'm working on a new smart phone app. It's called "Bishadi Translator."

 

Sexual orientation is relatively fluid among a lot of animals, especially mammals. Bisexuality seems to be the norm in a lot of social mammals.

All actions done by organisms were originally evolved for the propagation of alleles; so what? That doesn't mean we must engage in all activities for their evolved purpose. We're large-brained enough to engage in other activities.

Fun fact: most biologists have evidence that social animals use sex to cement alliances between one another in addition to procreation. Homosexual sex is especially used for that purpose.

"My weak facade of arguments is collapsing around me, please stop humiliating me so badly." <- translation of your quoted portion.

Don't play coy, anyone with a functional cerebrum knows what your implications were with that statement.

The only one engaged in a campaign of lies and chicanery is you.

So, you tell toddlers about your heterosexual sex life? Better call the cops on you, you sicko.

Your groundless implications are sure sign of your inability to form any sort of coherent or rational argument at all. You have no argument, just vitriol, probably self-directed because of some latent homosexual tendencies.

No it doesn't. Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't mean squat; I'm sure your inability to understand basic biology shouldn't be used to cripple people's intellectual development either.

No, there isn't, because your position is contra to any rational position.

I suppose you would be, yes.

And it's spelled "dumb." This is an English language forum, by the by, so please try to learn it adequately enough to actually use it properly.

The heat changes necessary to cause changes in conformations to enzymes in most mammals is sufficient to kill them.

And you're showing some knowledge of physiology there.

Nonsensical ravings of a madman. Photons, in and of themselves, do not change the mass of an organism.

You've stated that photons add mass to organisms. You are deranged.

So, you claim to know something about physiology, yet don't know about one of the simplest protein pumps present in all of Chordata?

Riiiiiiight. Did you get your education from a box of Cracker Jack?

 

Can't I just get a white noise generator app? Seems like it'd produce something more intelligible 99.9% of the time.

 

that'd be a smart move.

i just returned to read that last post. I wrote it on my phone and it was kind of goofy.

I hate tapping on them things.

my last point was that I am not focused or claim the sex is the "wrong" like some of the weirdo's who see same sex as being 'icky' etc.....

what i do not accept are the idiots who mislead with lies such as, that same sex is the other normal or that there are differences from the gender and sexual orientation (biologically).

These idiots that claim there are biological/physiological differences to define or orientate a life to homosexual action short of hermaphradite is crap.

Screw the papers these monkeys put on the table and the so called identified 'markers' as it is like the stupidity of rendering the goofy little lispe is just a the way they are, naturally.

Here is a piece of fact, there are more people born with a cleft palet than hermaphradite, the rest are pursuiing their path, by choice and most often by learned patterns and/or trauma. The more people allow these false pretences of normality to continue, the more children are going grow up confused and many will literally kill themselves over the issues surrounding the misdirection of reality.

As far as i am concerned the liars should not be allowed to mislead. People can assist the confused before allowing the selfish to create this false dichotomy surrounding the homosexuality issue.

my opinion

 

quit posting and less noise

keep fighting reality and you will lose, every time, eventually!

a selfish mind is obtuse; you dont want to learn, by choice

When you quit lying to yourself, you might evolve a bit.

 

i know. it is of the instinctive nature of the life

that is why the gender represents the lifes 'sexual orientation'

So you are evloving to realize that bisexual is the word you should have been using versus homosexual.

attaboy................ You are learning in baby steps.

aye........... so now you are seeing that it is the choice of what to use the parts for.

again, attaboy.........................

ooops... that regression

back to the end of the line.

Sex-procreation-relations..............good

i will keep that quote for you

i aint, you be making a fool of yourself and the forum can see it

but thanks for the laugh

stay out of biology

talk about tax advantages that you are wanting or something because you DO NOT comprehend the catalyst of chemical reactions within a biological process

what is photo synthesis? whats the p680?

Go lay by your dish. My first paper is photo neuron conduction at 16yrs old. ALL exchanges in biology are of em. Life is not existing upon the electrical model!

You are out of your league if trying to discount me on how life operates at the molecular level.

i didnt say that and you are a liar for claiming it.

but if you want to get technical, EVERY combining of ANY two elements to even make ONE molecule anywhere within the whole of the universe, must have a photon (em/light) in one wavelength or another for it to occur (postulate)

 

The Human Genome Project finished mapping the human genome in 2003. Scientific research of that data has been going on since then. There have been countless research projects focused on finding a "gay gene". None has been found. Most genetic researchers today agree that no gay gene exists. Scientists within the Human Genome Project now estimate that sexual orientation is less than 1% genetic, essentially a wash.

Other research using identical twins, who have the exact same genetics, have found that there's no genetic link between sexual orientation and genetics because it is most common for only one of the identical twins to be gay.

Now that the question has been answered, we can confidently say that no person has ever been born gay. Pro-gay apologists have moved on as well with very few still trying to argue for genetic cause.

The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have been in a frenzy to update their documentation as well. A great deal of evidence has emerged showing that sexuality is "fluid" over a person's lifetime. New terminologies and usages have emerged with keywords like "plasticity" and "fluid" commonly being used.

The "gay gene" debate is over. The degree to which this outcome has been devastating to some cannot be underestimated. The degree to which this outcome will affect society is vast. Many will remain in denial being simply unable to accept the outcome of the research. For many homosexuals, the answer will be a perpetual "not enough research has been done". More research has been done and the case is now closed. Time to move on.

The power of habituation is not well known to most people but it is the next frontier for understanding homosexuality. The ramifications of habituation as the basis of homosexuality will have a dramatic affect upon public policy.

Parents must now be considerate of the outcome of the gay gene debate. Since there is no longer any legitimate debate that homosexuality is a learned behavior, it becomes a parental responsibility to consider the many possible ways that a child may learn and act out various depravities including homosexuality, pedophilia, beastiality, and necrophilia as any of these may result in the end of their genetic line in the future gene pool.

 

i can understand all of the above but

i am thinking that that was a type error

as homosexual behavior is learned, and not biological

whether from the below mentioned antagonistic behavioral roots or other

fine work

 

Muslims will never know peace in America.

 

*cough* Wrong thread, eh, Albert?

 

LOL! Obviously you haven't studied biology and parthenogenesis!

Also, same sex marriage has been recorded around the world, including some American Indian tribes.

Some think that King David and Jonathan were married.

1Sa 18:21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the twain. (Twain is actually TWICE.)

1Sa 18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

1Sa 18:2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.

1Sa 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

1Sa 18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

At Jonathan's death - 2Sa 1:26 I am pining for thee, my (ach) other/kindred, Jonathan: especially delightful thy love, wondrously surpassing the love of women.

 

If you do a pubmed search on genes and sexual orientation you will find a plethera of scientific publications which conclude that genetics are involved in determining sexual preference. The current scientific consensus is that genes do play a important role in determining sexual preference but it is not genes alone that determine sexual preference. You are completely misrepresenting the dataset concerning genes and sexual preference.

 

Actually ---

"Researchers at the University of Padua in Italy have previously shown that female relatives of Gay men have 33 percent more children on average then women without gay male relatives. Now these same scientists have also shown the correlation in female relatives of bisexual men.

The researchers posit that unknown genes located on the X chromosome may increase sexual attraction toward men in both males and females. In women, this would theoretically increase the odds of reproducing. It may also explain the question of how "gay genes" are passed down through generations."

Science Illustrated March/April 2009 - from the Proceedings of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

http://sciencefocus.com/feature/life/gay-genetics


Several studies are suggesting there is a variation on some X chromosomes that result in homosexuality.

A female is XX, and a male is XY.

It has been found that females with direct male homosexual relatives, are more attracted to men, and sex, and produce more children then average females.

It is thought that the reason this continues is the advantage to the female - more offspring - passing of the genes.

When the advantageous X is passed to a female baby she will have more children.

When that X is passed to a male baby to form his XY, he also is attracted to men = homosexuality = with a REASON in nature!

 

The truth is always welcome regardless of the thread.

 

Firstly: the human genome codes for somewhere around 22,000 +/- 2,000 genes. Estimates on how many do what at this junction are mostly meaningless.

Additionally, even just 1% (which would be around 200 alleles) of alleles can make an enormous difference in development, as a large number of alleles in humans code for neurological development.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3730708

Emphasis added.

http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/sex/female-twin-lesbian.pdf

Unfortunately, I can't copy-paste anything from that PDF, but as this is a newer paper in comparison to the above, it is a little more trustworthy as far as heritability of homosexuality in females goes. It does support a hypothesis that homosexuality in females is heritable.

No it hasn't, as you've well shown that you don't actually comprehend how the genome works or seem to be familiar with other and more recent studies on genetics of human sexuality.

Fluid to an extent, however, that'd just mean we're more like bonobos than chimpanzees: using sex to cement social bonds together.

These days, no scientist would say that homosexuality is due to one allele, but rather at the very least polygenic, and probably due to various epigenetic effects.

Again: you display great misunderstanding of genetics and how they function.

Except not. Again you have grave misunderstandings of how biology functions.

 

You claim you've had a paper published and yet you can't properly write photosynthesis? That's more than adequate proof that you're a know-nothing tryhard. You can't even offer a single, solitary peer-reviewed article to support your claim, and you've even whined about data and evidence being problematic. You're no more a scientist than you are a literate rhetorician. You're clearly some teenaged boy (or a grown man with the thought patterns of a teenaged boy) who thinks homosexuality is "icky" and will try everything you can to keep your vile little views intact.

And, while it was fun, I see no point in continuing this harsh beatdown of your opinions. I knew I was never going to get you out of your fortress of ignorance; I was doing it for the benefit of others who might be reading and who aren't closeminded troglodytes.

 

sure they do, now!

Are you in america? Would you like to talk with a few who do live here and do rather well, in peace, in equality and knowing the Love of living, in a land of choice?

Let me give you a small hint: you could be in prison and know Peace.

Now someone that thinks they are homosexual by birth, is living in a prison!