Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have children. Homosexuals have just as many ways to reproduce as heterosexuals. Plus we also adopt those unwanted children of heterosexuals.
We get it. You find gays icky, and want them identified so you can stay away from them. Not going to happen. You seem to be the only one here that is suspicious that some man is eyeing you.
Obviously homosexuality serves some purpose, since it has been around since man first walked the earth.
If there were no biological reason, we would have died off thousands of years ago.
Umm what? No they don't.
Two women = non baby. Two men = no baby.
It is certainly true that one of the two women could get pregnant by a man's sperm. But that is not "THEIR" baby in a traditional sense. To say that homosexuals can reproduce in as many ways as heterosexuals, is simply delusional.
Look, most homosexuality comes from hormonal imbalances in-utero. Many homosexuals derive from something called "androgen insensitivity", which can also come as "partial androgen insensitivity". Another cause of homosexuality is the birth order. Basically, women's bodies attack the hormones of developing baby boys by releasing more estrogen. I wouldn't call either of these causes "evolution".
Like someone said, there is no "gay gene". Because homosexuality isn't evolutionary behavior. It is a defect, though a relatively common defect, that is difficult to weed out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer
Excuse me, but you started this thread and knew what the outcome would be. You knew it would **** us off, so you got exactly what you deserve, a fight. Do not like it, do not start it.
Well, the problem with homosexuals is that, they get their feelings hurt by anything and everything. I've never seen so many angry, name-calling people, as the gay community.
Well, I agree that women need protection from men. But who is going to protect them from men? Most likely, other men. And men have a natural desire to protect women, regardless of if they also have a natural tendency to harm them.
The question is, how do you make sure men protect women more than harm them?
That is a ridiculous statement to make. You can never have equal rights without acceptance. Black people for instance have equal rights, but they have still had to fight for acceptance. Regardless of if they made gay-marriage totally legal tomorrow, do you really think your fight is over? Get real.
My point was, even if everyone understands that it is a forgone conclusion that same-sex marriage will be legal. And you want to run around prancing in the streets saying how you won.
My question is, what did you win exactly? Is the country better off now that gays are running around getting married? Is the world a more peaceful place? Are people on average more happy?
What did you win? Because I don't think anyone won. I think we have all lost.
I think everyone should wear a badge for a variety of reasons, not just homosexuality. I mean, even on a simple level, wouldn't it be nice if everyone wore a name badge?
I don't need a man to protect me. I am licensed to carry, and regularly target practice. My partner was a college judo champion.
The way you get men to stop hurting women is hold the man accountable. no slap on the wrist crap.
Men need to learn some self control. It is not a womans fault, and a woman shouldn't have to live their lives locked away to be safe from man who can't control themselves.
I will never have acceptance from people like you, so why should I bother? The younger generation are far more accepting, and the old bigots are dieing off. Your type will look just like those who fought against interracial couples. Hope you like the company that YOU have put yourself with.
I will have won the right to be treated equally by the laws of this country. Sorry if you don't like it.
Well, I don't really know what the intent of the post was.
To me, it shows that before the whole gay movement came about, when people saw men holding hands with each other, it wasn't immediately associated with being gay. The pictures consistently show two men in very close quarters to each other. And the intent of the posters was to show strong friendship between men.
If those pictures came out today, the same message wouldn't be conveyed.
I mean, two men taking a shower together in 1950, not gay. Anytime more than one man is naked in the same room with another man, it feels pretty damn gay.
To a certain extent, you could say the "gay issue" has altered society. Basically, it makes men somewhat defensive that every other man around them is gay.
I was at the store earlier, and there were two women in line ahead of me. At some point when the one ahead of the other was checking out, some kind of comment was made, and each of them began talking to each other in a very kind and lighthearted way. Basically smiling and laughing at each other.
I thought, if one of them had been a man, they probably wouldn't have been able to have that kind of friendly, playful, but casual conversation with each other, because they didn't know each other. Being friendly to someone of the same sex is perfectly acceptable behavior. Being friendly to someone of the opposite sex a lot of times seems like flirting.
If a large percentage of women were lesbians, I think women would be less likely to be very talkative with people they don't know. Because you wouldn't want to convey the wrong message to someone you have no concept of their orientation.
It almost makes me wish that gay people had to wear a badge on their arms, so we know who is gay and who isn't. And they should have their own restrooms and showers. Then maybe their existence wouldn't be so worrisome.
Many gay couples do raise children - and that isn't limited to the human species. In many species, "gay" couples raise orphaned or abandoned young. In many bird species life-long male/male "mating" pairs even steal eggs, hatch them, and raise the chicks - and they usually do so with much greater success than male/female pairs (twice the survival to adulthood rate in some species).
Only for homophobes does this occur. Stop projecting your insecurities onto everybody else.
Why is the overpopulation theory ridiculous (there is some evidentiarry support for it)? Also, look at the example I mentioned above in reference to gay child rearing - those show, especially in the bird species, that having a homosexual sub-segment directly aids in the propagation of the species. There is also evidence that male homosexuality in humans is a form of sexually antagonistic selecion - that it increases female fertility and the porportion of females in a population with high fecundity, which leads to higher genetic variation being maintained in a population.
Among advanced animals, only mammals have XY chromosomes.
Some fish can change their sex in adult time. The sex of some turtles is determined by the temperature.
So only mammals are comparable to humans. Especially primates.
Do you know the promiscuity of bonobo chimpanzees? Common chimpanzees, on the other hand, do not have the promiscuity behavior. Do you want humans to evolve toward the direction of bonobo chimpanzees?
It is certainly true that one of the two women could get pregnant by a man's sperm. But that is not "THEIR" baby in a traditional sense. To say that homosexuals can reproduce in as many ways as heterosexuals, is simply delusional.
Look, most homosexuality comes from hormonal imbalances in-utero. Many homosexuals derive from something called "androgen insensitivity", which can also come as "partial androgen insensitivity". Another cause of homosexuality is the birth order. Basically, women's bodies attack the hormones of developing baby boys by releasing more estrogen. I wouldn't call either of these causes "evolution".
Like someone said, there is no "gay gene". Because homosexuality isn't evolutionary behavior. It is a defect, though a relatively common defect, that is difficult to weed out.
Cancer has been with animals for millions of years. What is the purpose of cancer?
OK it makes creatures die.
Cancer culls the weak in nature. Homosexual live long and happy lives, raise children, pay taxes, are fire fighter, serve in the military, are doctors, are teachers, and anything anyone else does.
Cancer has been with animals for millions of years. What is the purpose of cancer?
OK it makes creatures die.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bettafish
There are many interpretations you can make from the data.
One example, as someone mentioned already, the gay movement altered society and changed people's perception.
Another example, what is "gay" is a cultural thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bettafish
Among advanced animals, only mammals have XY chromosomes.
Some fish can change their sex in adult time. The sex of some turtles is determined by the temperature.
So only mammals are comparable to humans. Especially primates.
Do you know the promiscuity of bonobo chimpanzees? Common chimpanzees, on the other hand, do not have the promiscuity behavior. Do you want humans to evolve toward the direction of bonobo chimpanzees?
Oh, a JOKE thread...that clears that up...no point to a joke especially one with no punch line....unbelievable....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
