I love gays.

But they're DEAD wrong in believing that it's okay to have sexual relations with the same sex in place of the opposite sex.

Even the atheist's god, Evolution, backs me up on that one.

Discuss. If I read your post and see great hope in your use of logic, I'll respond.

 

There has been a number of studies that show that for each male offspring in a family, the likelihood of the next male being homosexual goes up by 30%.

Although it isn't confirmed, I suspect that homosexuality is a genetic mutation that evolved in order to prevent any one family from establishing dominance over the gene pool. It is the byproduct of certain genes interacting: one gene that makes a man more likely to have male offspring, the other is one that makes women more likely to have male offspring. When these genes are switched on (ie a man and woman with these genes reproduces), it results in homosexual behavior, so as to preserve the gender ratio of our species.

One thing is for absolute certain: homosexuality is a stable, historical presence, and is thus certainly natural. It must also have some sort of genetic basis, because we are merely biological creatures, and all behavior must have a genetic origin.

 

Checkmate, gays

 

You can't love gays if you deny them sex.

 

How exactly is sexual pleasure "wrong" according to evolution?

Also how exactly is evolution a god?

 

"Okay"?? Who in the (*)(*)(*)(*) do you think you are to tell consenting adults you don't even know what sexual practices are and are not "okay"??

 

Your opinion is that it's wrong. My opinion is it's none of our business how they have sexual relations.

 

Its only natural in the sense that its an abnormality of nature.

Nature does not create species which do not propagate. If that does creep into a genetic line then nature makes that species go extinct for one that has a higher survivability.

We can argue the morality of homosexuality all day but there is no argument that supports homosexuality being natural.

 

Except when it does.

 

That's complete B.S. Homosexuality is a belief. Some people believe they "have it". They don't.

Don't fool your own self too......

- - - Updated - - -

I can love my 3 year old if I deny her sex.


Come on. Gosh.

 

It hasn't though.

Only about 4% of the human species is homosexual. If it were a normal occurrence you would expect it to be roughly around half.

That is just basic science.

Therefore you need to look at why only a small percentage is gay, which they have done, and there is quite a bit of research leading to a genetic cause for this.

That is an abnormality away from the majority of the species. Think of it in the terms of a creatures chance of being born an albino.

Yes it happens, but it is not how the species was designed, it is a flaw at the scientific level.

 

Negative. You made a claim, I'm asking you to support it. If you can't, your claim can be dismissed with any evidence.

 

We're not talking about 3 year olds.

 

I LOVE conservatives.

But they're DEAD wrong in their beliefs.

Even the conservative's basis for their Utopia, History, backs me up on that one.

(No, not just gainsaying.....I believe that.)


BTW, I would ask those who oppose homosexual sex on the grounds of "wrong" or "against Evolution"...if they have ever engaged in anal or oral sex or even manual sex with their partners?

 

Progressivism doesn't contain any mandate to reproduce and actually moves in the opposite direction with the environmentalist idea that the population should be shrunk. As such, it's totally irrelevant to progressives that gays should in theory fail to propagate themselves because they often want lower reproduction rates anyway.

Interesting idea though you are treading into heavily not-PC territory here. If you look at so-called "homosexual" behavior in other animal species and recognize that a lot of gays are really "bisexuals" then it starts to become really easy to come up with theories that can explain homosexuality. But comparing gays to chimps and so-on has never been a way to make oneself popular in most circles.

Like in my other responses, I generally agree with you, but in ancient times homosexual behavior may have been a more effective reproductive strategy than it is today. Societies (and probably individuals) have evolved a resistance to gay's attempts to confuse and seduce them and the usual method of resistance is to be thoroughly disgusted by it.

 

Because roughly half the population has blue eyes or red hair, right?

Or is having blue eyes or red hair not "normal"?

 

Who the ++++ do you think YOU are to be able to know that I can't know which practices are okay?

You know too. You just have too many hang-ups to be able to realize what it is you know.

 

Well then dismiss it. What do I care what you think? I'm only here to lay out what's true. If you don't want to believe it, that's your problem. It's not mine. If you want to have a debate with me though, you need to have a base of thought that is deeper than one which you are trying to convince me you have.

 

Because you're talking about free persons who have a right to do whatever they want, without interference from you. It doesn't matter what you think, or "know" is "okay". It doesn't matter what I think, or "know" is "okay". The only thing that matters is that when two or more consenting adults get together to have sex in whatever manner they wish, the only persons whose opinions matter are those in the room at the time. Both yours and mine are completely irrelevant, unless we happen to be one of those persons.

 

If your claim is "true" then you should be able to support it, should you not? Or do you admit you have no evidence to back up your claim?

If you have no evidence, why should I or anyone else accept your claim as true?

 

-Not to the exclusion of having sex with people of the opposite sex from them.

 

Well compare the rates if you want to use that is your variable. What percentage of the population has blue eyes or red hair compared to the rest of the species? Are you going to divide by racial factors before you make your calculations or look at it on a regional basis? These questions do not apply to homosexuality because none of them factor into whether or not a person is gay.

What is the norm?

What is the variance.

Does it fall within the variance or outside of it.

 

I just told you, I don't care if you believe me or not. Like homosexuality, it's your choice to believe me or not. I won't be answering you any more on this thread. No offense, but you're just arguing.

 

Considering "races" don't really exist genetically, why would I account for them?

"Red hair occurs naturally in about 1-2% of the human population"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair

So I guess having red hair is "abnormal". Or we can acknowledge that words like "normal" and "abnormal" have no useful meaning in debates like this.

 

Then, heterosexuals have the right to reject public displays of homosexuality because heterosexuals are 'in the room.'