For the homophobes

[Tyris]

Daughter all day.

*****!? Lmao your name solos x'D

 

[Fountain]

I would rather have a gay son than a ***** daughter.

 

[AndreJNZ]

I'd rather not worry about grand kids.

 

[Aim64C]

@Aim64C the gay son could just adopt a kid.

I'm going to give you a chance to redeem yourself.

Re-read my post, and then look at your response. If you don't understand with what I am about to strike you, after that, then you deserve it.

 

[GinkgoLeaf Girl]

I would love my children unconditionally and I would do my best to support and care for them. I would not have any issues with having a son who is gay.

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

I'm going to give you a chance to redeem yourself.

Re-read my post, and then look at your response. If you don't understand with what I am about to strike you, after that, then you deserve it.

A part of your post was about how a gay son couldn't provide a successor. I was responding to that.

 

[Aim64C]

A part of your post was about how a gay son couldn't provide a successor. I was responding to that.

And you squander the opportunity to salvage your intelligence.

Would you care to puzzle through how my DNA is going to end up in that adopted kid? Do they still teach you kids about DNA and evolution in school, or are you just instructed to be rabid ferals? Was this degree of stupid taught, or were you born with it? Curious minds want to know.

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

And you squander the opportunity to salvage your intelligence.

Would you care to puzzle through how my DNA is going to end up in that adopted kid? Do they still teach you kids about DNA and evolution in school, or are you just instructed to be rabid ferals? Was this degree of stupid taught, or were you born with it? Curious minds want to know.

Someone doesn't have to have your genetics to carry your legacy.

 

[slimreaper]

Someone doesn't have to have your genetics to carry your legacy.

There are countless people that have similar ideals. The only thing that you hold in common with those who carry you legacy is DNA.

 

[BlacLord™]

They are both a preference, are they not?



Who?

They will be looking for a 'gay' gene for a very long time, because there isn't one.

Or, to be more scientific with the response - there is no gene that is both common to homosexuals and exclusive of heterosexuals. Worse, the studies are difficult to do in the first place as there are no criteria by which to objectively distinguish someone as 'homosexual.'

Sounds crazy - but when you look at most of the more thorough studies, the study subjects are asked their sexual preference and there is a course of followup interviews/surveys where, after a few years, a number of homosexuals now identify as heterosexual or bisexual.

Translated - this means that there exists no way to 'prove' anyone is a homosexual.

Consider this - let's say there -is- a gay gene. But how can you find it if people who check "homosexual" on the survey are just confused heterosexuals who gave up on women? Now you have contamination of your data set ... and how do you control for that?

The best way to try and control for that is twin studies. If homosexuality is something governed by genetics, then we would expect identical twins to both be homosexual. Since this is only the case roughly 50% of the time, there are other factors that quite clearly influence this. Further, without digging into each of those studies to see what follow-ups found several years later, it's impossible to declare them definitive. If the study allowed for 18 year old people to respond to the survey, it is likely that the number of people who identify as homosexual decline.



Finding things arousing and sexual preference are two completely different things.

Just as a dog is likely to get a hard-on when he becomes emotionally excited - men and women are both likely to become stimulated, particularly in their teenage years. Men become very sensitive, and just the presence of their clothing can trigger arousal. It is also common for young men to become aroused in the presence of other men - similar to how a dog contesting another dog will become aroused. It is also common for people entering puberty to engage in exploratory behavior with those whom they trust, regardless of their ***. Close friends are more likely to be chosen to explore sexuality - someone they feel more comfortable with.

None of those are to be confused for sexual preference.



There are songs, however, that trigger an immediate response from you. When you listen to some songs, your adrenal glands are stimulated and you are filled with energy. Others that you find more relaxing will trigger a relaxing of your blood vessels and a lowering of your blood pressure (as well as heart rate, breathing, etc).

You tend to associate songs with the environments where you first encountered them or the people who introduced you to them. While there are sounds and patterns we find inherently stimulating in one way or another, there is a much broader context that ties into our perception of music that then triggers the somatic response.

There is a reason certain music is called "mood music" and some people play it while engaging in sexual activity to 'enhance' things.



Somewhat.

Under the Red Queen Hypothesis, the fact that women have these large, fatty masses on the front of their chests is completely unnecessary in terms of classical evolution. It is an increased strain upon the body with little benefit (women with larger breasts don't necessarily have a greater capacity to produce milk, or anything).

You must be registered for see links

Therefor, under classical evolution, large breasts are unfavorable to the human population and would be selected by the environment for reduction.

Yet, here they are.

Why?

In fact, this is somewhat unique among all other mammals on the planet. It is not as if humans had large boobs to begin with and the smaller breasted among us are the harbingers of evolution.

The answer is fairly simple within the Red Queen. For whatever reason, men decided they liked women with larger breasts - enough of them to skew things in that direction. Perhaps it was cognitive - men thought that a woman with larger breasts was better suited to child birth - or perhaps it was just a 'that looks different and I like different.'

The same can be said of the hip-waist ratio in women. It's well beyond what is necessary for healthy childbirth, and actually contributes to the rate of hip fractures for women. In fact, in more egalitarian populations, there is a lower hip/waist ratio among women, as the rate of hip fractures begins to weigh more heavily upon a woman's ability to survive until reproduction.



It is a broader class of developmental disorder affecting neurology.

You could say: "It is learned" - but within the context of how neural networks 'learn' in the vein of Pavlov's Dog. Pavlov noticed that a dog would salivate upon being fed, and hypothesized that dogs would be able to salivate simply upon hearing a call to dinner. Sure enough - if one rang a bell before feeding a dog, then the dog could be 'taught' - or 'conditioned' - to salivate simply upon hearing the bell.

There are higher-order processes involved in this, but they all follow similar patterns that feed into each other.

This is why those who identify as homosexuals typically have been sexually abused - an incidence vastly greater than 50%. Various forms of abuse interrupt the natural development cycle of our neurology and generate abnormal concepts of identity and association.

Which is why I believe the haste to "identify" and "celebrate" homosexuals is more damaging than it is helpful. Given the above regarding teenage exploratory behavior, which is well documented in psychology studies looking into human behavior from the 1800s on up, it would be particularly damaging to put it into the heads of children that people "are" homosexual as an irreversible and born identity - as any arousal or behavior including the same *** would be interpreted as a sort of sentencing to homosexuality among people who have not yet developed sexuality in the first place.

Simply put - these 'mothers' who try to 'celebrate' the 'homosexuality' of their 10 year old child are effectively committing a form of psychological abuse, as sexuality has not even remotely developed in individuals 10 years old. Sexuality is developed between puberty and young adulthood.

While there may be genetic factors that bias the neurology of individuals toward one disorder or another - genetics do not provide a very strong argument for homosexuality.

The same liberal groups that argued 'sexuality is fluid' also want to argue that 'homosexuality is a born trait.' You can't have it both ways. Either sexuality is fluid and a concept that develops within the minds of people - or it is a born-in concept that is set by genetics (which is something that is currently proven false by current research).

Take your pick.

Biggest load of crap I've ever heard in my life. It seems your neurological disorder severely narrows your capacity for seeing, and comprehending the world around you. Can't blame you though, since you're born that way.

Homosexuality and bisexuality are down to hormonal balances in the womb, end of.

 

[Babadook]

Homosexuality and bisexuality are down to hormonal balances in the womb, end of.

I'm no expert on the topic, so take my post with a grain of salt (notwithstanding that I'm well aware that you can find plenty of research papers supporting your pretension), but I've also read studies suggesting that the hormonal thingy is just not backed up by evidence.

"Researchers Peter Bearman and Hannah Brückner, from Columbia and Yale respectively, studied data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, and found even lower concordance rates of only 6.7% for male and 5.3% for female identical twins. In fact, their study neatly refuted several of the biological theories for the origin of homosexuality,finding social experiences in childhood to be far more significant:

[T]he pattern of concordance (similarity across pairs) of same-*** preference for sibling pairs does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context.Our data falsify the hormone transfer hypothesis by isolating a single condition
that eliminates the opposite-*** twin effect we observe—the presence of an older same-*** sibling. We also consider and reject a speculative evolutionary theory that rests on observing birth-order effects on same-*** orientation. In
contrast, our results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-*** romantic preferences."

You must be registered for see links

Again, I'm not qualified to judge which studies are more legit, I've just remembered this article, and well, maybe either you or Aim64 will elaborate.

 

[slimreaper]

Biggest load of crap I've ever heard in my life. It seems your neurological disorder severely narrows your capacity for seeing, and comprehending the world around you. Can't blame you though, since you're born that way.

Homosexuality and bisexuality are down to hormonal balances in the womb, end of.

you gotta prove your point dude. you can't just state some shit and provide nothing to back it.

 

[LordRaikage]

my daughter is going to get pregnant one day soooooo

but i wouldn't bother me for long that my son is gay.

OT: daughter

 

[Punk Hazard]

And you squander the opportunity to salvage your intelligence.

Would you care to puzzle through how my DNA is going to end up in that adopted kid? Do they still teach you kids about DNA and evolution in school, or are you just instructed to be rabid ferals? Was this degree of stupid taught, or were you born with it? Curious minds want to know.

There are countless people that have similar ideals. The only thing that you hold in common with those who carry you legacy is DNA.

Donate/receive sperm, legacy goes on through DNA the same way they would have if they were straight, problem solved.

 

[Aim64C]

Someone doesn't have to have your genetics to carry your legacy.

Biologically, yes.

You are going to stand here and reinforce the position that homosexuality is genetic, but then try to act as if the biological imperative to procreate is moot?

My DNA is part of who I am, and is part of who my children will be, as I am part of who my parents and grandparents were - both in ideology and in biology.

I probably will adopt when I am older and my hypothetical wife is too old to bear children. That said - no amount of adoption can satisfy the countless millennia of evolution that commands reproduction and the continuing of legacy.

By no means does that mean that adopted kids cannot be loved, nor does it mean that they are viewed as lesser - but the fact of the matter is that all organisms exist to reproduce. We are vessels for our DNA - vehicles for its journey through the ages.

Biggest load of crap I've ever heard in my life. It seems your neurological disorder severely narrows your capacity for seeing, and comprehending the world around you. Can't blame you though, since you're born that way.

You would lie to the dragon of your earth?

Malice is in your heart and judgment upon your breath. Your kingdom to I has been challenged, and all who resist it must be slain. Your quaint words do not hide your mind from my eyes, child.

Homosexuality and bisexuality are down to hormonal balances in the womb, end of.

First it's genetics, now its gestation... let's introduce Astrology, now, too.

The problem with this argument is that twin studies have already confirmed that there is only limited causation that can be tied to genetics, gestation, or even Astrology - since the conditions of gestation and birth are as identical as they can get - including any hormonal spikes during pregnancy.

Which, by the way, hormonal changes during gestation would reinforce the idea of a neurological disorder.

It would be immoral, but I have suggested that it would be possible to condition a fetus to associate yelling and screaming with pleasure through a manipulation of the hormones present during the sounds in development.

Potential evidence of this phenomena could be found at play if certain fetishes are shown to have a high possibility of being inherited. For example - a woman who is routinely choked and subjected to screaming during *** would be more likely to have a daughter who associates the lower oxygen produced by asphyxiation as well as the sounds of screaming (or even specific verbal patterns) with pleasure. It could provide a possible explanation for the tendency of abusive relationships to transition generation to generation outside of simple economic and other psychological factors (some girls find such things to be arousing even if not in an abusive relationship and otherwise self-respecting).

Of course - they can also learn to find other things arousing, as well.

The fact is that the theory that it stems from neurological processes is the only one that has the potential to account for the variety seen among those who identify as homosexual, those who transition from homosexual to heterosexual, and vice-versa. Well - it is the only one that can do so and prove both specific and consistent in its rules.

 

[Aim64C]

Donate/receive sperm, legacy goes on through DNA the same way they would have if they were straight, problem solved.

We are now discussing something other than adoption.

Sure - from a male's standpoint, the more seeds one can get out there, the merrier (so long as they don't file for child support...).

That said - this doesn't really satisfy the command of nature. Have you not read of the Red Queen? Remember - I'm only part of my kid. There's a second part that goes into it - and that second part is chosen after considerable evaluation. The act of procreation is also the act of selecting the other half that will go into your kid to the best of your ability. This other half isn't just genetics, but also experience, personality, lineage, etc.

Simply depositing sperm into a bank to be mislabeled and sold just doesn't quite cut it. Consider that most sperm banks allow the woman to select from among the male donors - viewing descriptions of them in something oddly similar to a dating profile.

 

[Punk Hazard]

We are now discussing something other than adoption.

Sure - from a male's standpoint, the more seeds one can get out there, the merrier (so long as they don't file for child support...).

That said - this doesn't really satisfy the command of nature. Have you not read of the Red Queen? Remember - I'm only part of my kid. There's a second part that goes into it - and that second part is chosen after considerable evaluation. The act of procreation is also the act of selecting the other half that will go into your kid to the best of your ability. This other half isn't just genetics, but also experience, personality, lineage, etc.

Simply depositing sperm into a bank to be mislabeled and sold just doesn't quite cut it. Consider that most sperm banks allow the woman to select from among the male donors - viewing descriptions of them in something oddly similar to a dating profile.

Who gives a **** about any of this shit. You want homosexuals to procreate too, they'll accomplish this by donating sperm or receiving sperm. Quit your "but mah evolutions" *****ing

 

[Dantee]

Daughter all day.

Facts.

 

[TenseiganFTW]

Gay people are hopeless worthless,donate sperm?
Lol this clearly shows life doesn't work without Heterosexuality.
If your parents were gay,you would never exist!
Take your parents as a sexample...

 

[King Kendrick]

Gay people are hopeless worthless,donate sperm?
Lol this clearly shows life doesn't work without Heterosexuality.
If your parents were gay,you would never exist!
Take your parents as a sexample...

So what's your point ? How does this justify homphobia ?