Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71119 Jan 16, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't posting a theory, you are posting a hypothesis at best - one that has been tossed out decades ago.
This history of scientific investigation into homosexuality is rife with failures. First, they imagined physical differences between gays and straights - oops, none existed. Then they imagined hormone differences - oops, none exist. Next they imagined hormone-led developmental differences - oops, none exist. Then, hormone-led brain differences - ooops...non-explanatory and not found.
Homosexuality was removed as a psychological disorder because it is not one. Treatment programs for it failed; they were driven by cultural beliefs and not scientific information.
For you to imagine that homosexuality is a mental disorder, you have to ignore that all human cultures have homosexual behavior in them, with the majority of cultures (Ford and Beach, 1951) accepting of it as normal.
Your problem, as I've mentioned before, is that you fail to understand that your comprehension of all things sexual is a cultural construction. Western culture divides sexuality into homo and hetero - most cultures do not. In fact, that's new for Western culture, too - it began roughly 130 years ago with the rise of sexology in Germany.
But you are going to ignore history, ignore anthropology, ignore psychology to maintain your unsupported and unsupportable belief system. Why? Because you grew up that way - you were raised to value one way of doing sex against all others.
No, you're going to go on avoiding that simple evolutionary observation that homosexuality does not produce offspring.

The rest can be described as learned behavior, but as with our baboon friends, herd cohesion is absolutely essential to the survival strategy of a species that must survive on land and defend itself from predators rather than flee to the trees.

You missed my wording when I said "passive". Nobody said the bonobos were lazy. I said they weren't fighters. You're not looking at the the debate without bias. You're confused. You're not ready to defend your pack as part of the group. My observation is that your personal point of view is not shared with the majority and even though I spell it out, you'll probably go back to your mythology. With that, you're inclined to repetitive rituals, maybe even obsessive-compulsive behavior.

So you want me to read books and fence with the bonobos using fancy Latin words? Nah. Not today.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71120 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
If homosexuality is not a medical problem, why can't a civil union be as acceptable as marriage? Sure, make the contract carry the financial equality of marriage. But that's not the goal. It MUST BE MARRIAGE!!! I'm fairly confident that the agenda will accept nothing less. We've seen it from everyone who's lined up to go through their sound bites. The goal is legal recognition of homosexuality as "normal" behavior.
Well, there's the point you fail to see. Go around in circles some more. I won't forget. Bernanke won't care. My message continues to be demonstrated to my satisfaction.
Now, watch as we witness our latest contestant demonstrate all of the annoying traits like "Gish gallops" in the name of "Gay science." We still don't have a representative of the uniquely "gay" debate tactic, the invader of privacy.
Are you going to cross that line? If you do, here's how it goes: 1. I ask you if you're a homosexual. 2. You either refuse to answer or take it over the top, but really only keep working the castration thing. 3. I dismiss your claims as prejudiced opinion. 4. You either fall back to your dubious psychic theories or engage in a collaborative effort with hidingfromyou, but still only engage in attempts to generate castration anxiety. You then strive to establish an echo chamber of "one million Elvis fans can't be wrong" mob psychology.
Nah. I've never seen this slop before.
Conclusion: It's all politics!
It's politics because you want to it to be a political issue. It's also science but you want to ignore the facts.

I don't care about gay marriage or civil unions, but they should be given a choice just like straight people. Just live them alone and focus on your own sexuality for a change.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71121 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're going to go on avoiding that simple evolutionary observation that homosexuality does not produce offspring.
The rest can be described as learned behavior, but as with our baboon friends, herd cohesion is absolutely essential to the survival strategy of a species that must survive on land and defend itself from predators rather than flee to the trees.
You missed my wording when I said "passive". Nobody said the bonobos were lazy. I said they weren't fighters. You're not looking at the the debate without bias. You're confused. You're not ready to defend your pack as part of the group. My observation is that your personal point of view is not shared with the majority and even though I spell it out, you'll probably go back to your mythology. With that, you're inclined to repetitive rituals, maybe even obsessive-compulsive behavior.
So you want me to read books and fence with the bonobos using fancy Latin words? Nah. Not today.
LOL.

As far as I'm concerned you were the one defending the neanderthals, um yeah. Bonobos are no different.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#71122 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous, even if, no change that, when homosexual marriage is legally recognized in your state no one will force you to marry a "homo". So you can quit worrying.

Why are you so opposed to the concept?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71123 Jan 16, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
It's politics because you want to it to be a political issue. It's also science but you want to ignore the facts.
I don't care about gay marriage or civil unions, but they should be given a choice just like straight people. Just live them alone and focus on your own sexuality for a change.
I'm quite sure that I'm not interested in the private lives of gays!

This whole debate started when imsickofit dropped in with his usual mission statement that we must put down all those NAZI Christians and save gay marriage so that civilization can move on again.

Well, I don't like that childish slop. Whether you call it childish, mentally unbalanced or just plain nasty trolling, that was a disruption of the topic. I know the stereotype so I'm hunkering down for a stream of the megaphone toting shills.

That includes gays who are all messed up inside, male hating women and hypocritically bigoted white-male haters of all types who think we're hard-wired bigots until properly castrated. Toss in upper middle class, married, White men who still have a reason to ride the gravy train and you've got the Democratic party.

It was political jihad as soon as I replied to sickofit. I knew that. There's not one scrap of this story that hasn't been acted out a million times before.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#71124 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't bother analyzing my motives. I've stated them. You choose to ignore them.
Just like you can't identify a gene for your favorite color, you can't find one that is responsible for homosexuality.....AND you aren't going to create any law about your right to a favorite color, just as there's no laws about rights to anyone's sexual preferences. It's foolish.
I'm posing a reasonable theory on the nature of homosexuality. My goal is to dismiss a claim that there's a moral mandate to protect homosexuality. You've inadvertently endorsed my logic. Your goal was probably to try to dominate the discussion by creating castration anxiety, but asserting my masculinity was not my goal.
That's what I like to call scientific discipline. Checkpoint met!:o)
Sexual attraction is driven by genetics, it's connected to the reproduction system a species utilizes to assist in genetic diversity. Are you saying that the birds which choose based on plumage are just choosing based entirely on cosmetic traits as well? Same thing.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#71125 Jan 16, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That camp has never produced viable theory - their hypotheses are never borne out.
Meh. Like I said, it was years ago.

Is there a more current theory?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71126 Jan 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
anonymous, even if, no change that, when homosexual marriage is legally recognized in your state no one will force you to marry a "homo". So you can quit worrying.
Why are you so opposed to the concept?
Because he thinks it's a disease and could be contagious.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71127 Jan 16, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
As far as I'm concerned you were the one defending the neanderthals, um yeah. Bonobos are no different.
Defending the Neanderthals? What do you have against Neanderthals? Some of my best friends are Neanderthals!

BTW - a family member did have one of those marker tests and they did find Basque in the family tree so those Neanderthals were probably not-so-distant cousins.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71128 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm quite sure that I'm not interested in the private lives of gays!
This whole debate started when imsickofit dropped in with his usual mission statement that we must put down all those NAZI Christians and save gay marriage so that civilization can move on again.
Well, I don't like that childish slop. Whether you call it childish, mentally unbalanced or just plain nasty trolling, that was a disruption of the topic. I know the stereotype so I'm hunkering down for a stream of the megaphone toting shills.
That includes gays who are all messed up inside, male hating women and hypocritically bigoted white-male haters of all types who think we're hard-wired bigots until properly castrated. Toss in upper middle class, married, White men who still have a reason to ride the gravy train and you've got the Democratic party.
It was political jihad as soon as I replied to sickofit. I knew that. There's not one scrap of this story that hasn't been acted out a million times before.
Don't put the blame on someone who opened a can of your worms.

And no I am not one of those white-male haters. lol
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71129 Jan 16, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sexual attraction is driven by genetics, it's connected to the reproduction system a species utilizes to assist in genetic diversity. Are you saying that the birds which choose based on plumage are just choosing based entirely on cosmetic traits as well? Same thing.
Well, I'm not sure that I agree, at least not totally.

I can't say why birds choose their mates, but plumage isn't a survival strategy in itself. A male with bright plumage may be demonstrating past successful survival ability by being conspicuous. As long as that conspicuous plumage isn't compulsory for the immature males, it's showing off. I guess female birds tend to go for the punks too!

That mating pattern DOES suggest that child rearing is mostly a female responsibility for such species. Is there a moral to this story?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71130 Jan 16, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So you want to continue to discriminate them? I get it.
Hmm. Would you call it discrimination to not allow an epileptic to fly a commercial airliner? All I'm interested in is perspective, not litmus test politics.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71131 Jan 16, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't put the blame on someone who opened a can of your worms.
And no I am not one of those white-male haters. lol
My worms?

Anyway, I'm not sure you're a liberal either. You're all over the map.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#71132 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm. Would you call it discrimination to not allow an epileptic to fly a commercial airliner? All I'm interested in is perspective, not litmus test politics.
An epileptic airline pilot would be an obvious danger to humanity.

How could you say the same for a legally married gay couple?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71133 Jan 16, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
hahaha!
So...you came here to intimidate?
I came here to procrastinate. I know I am wasting my time trying to explain how reality works to people like you, but to be honest, I don't write for you. I write for others and use you as a foil. The things is, people without religious prejudice aren't going to ask such uninformed questions. So the forums need people like you, with all your biases and strange beliefs to drive conversations.
I used to post links to scientific articles to back up everything I write. Time after time they just get ignored - people with committed belief systems are immune to learning. You guys just ignore the science. So why bother posting the links?
Cheers.
OK, you're not here to intimidate.

What's so "hahaha" funny?

Just answer the question. Don't set up your choreography first.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#71134 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm. Would you call it discrimination to not allow an epileptic to fly a commercial airliner? All I'm interested in is perspective, not litmus test politics.
Then why do you insist on a litmus test for two people to get married?

You may not see it but you are being very hypocritical.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71135 Jan 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
anonymous, even if, no change that, when homosexual marriage is legally recognized in your state no one will force you to marry a "homo". So you can quit worrying.
Why are you so opposed to the concept?
First, I don't like the trivialization of real liberalism, and I don't like the Democratic party litmus test.

Second, you ask "Why are you so opposed to the concept?" What was that concept? Allowing other to engage in gay marriage, or your own sub-conscious (or conscious)effort to dominate the discussion with an invasion of my personal space?

Freudian slip or is that cigar just a cigar? Hmmmm..... hmmmmmm!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71137 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm. Would you call it discrimination to not allow an epileptic to fly a commercial airliner? All I'm interested in is perspective, not litmus test politics.
false analogy fallacy
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71136 Jan 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why do you insist on a litmus test for two people to get married?
You may not see it but you are being very hypocritical.
I already said, remove all financial considerations from the act of marriage, and get government out of the business of marriage. Problem solved.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#71138 Jan 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
First, I don't like the trivialization of real liberalism, and I don't like the Democratic party litmus test.
Second, you ask "Why are you so opposed to the concept?" What was that concept? Allowing other to engage in gay marriage, or your own sub-conscious (or conscious)effort to dominate the discussion with an invasion of my personal space?
Freudian slip or is that cigar just a cigar? Hmmmm..... hmmmmmm!
anonymous, this is a public forum. You have no "personal space" here. And why do you think this is a Democratic party litmus test? When this motion failed in California it had more to do with the Democrats than the Republicans. The black and latino population voted strongly against it. In my state it passed largely because they aimed most of their advertisements towards Republicans. This is not a party issue.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 4 min Mugwump 178,139
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Denisova 17,939
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 3 hr Dogen 915
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Mar 26 Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Mar 26 MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee Mar 25 Paul Porter1 1
News Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) Mar 25 MikeF 3,394
More from around the web