Why homosexuality is important in evolution
Rob Cypher
Homosexuality appeals to that goal or idealation, when genders desires differ.
It is part of being human. Nothing wrong with it, just the expression of an
individual (and hardwired due to genetics to boot).
--
Rob Cypher
http://robcypher.livejournal.com
http://www.myspace.com/robcyphercollective
http://www.facebook.com/robcypher
http://www.youtube.com/robcypher
http://www.twitter.com/robcypher
Music Reviews:
http://apps.facebook.com/visualcdrack/people/1713595594
Book Reviews:
http://apps.facebook.com/facebookshelf/people/1713595594
Movie Reviews:
http://apps.facebook.com/dvdshelf/people/1713595594
TV Reviews:
http://apps.facebook.com/livingsocial-tv/people/1713595594
Video Game Reviews:
http://apps.facebook.com/videogamerack/people/1713595594
Don Stockbauer
> Men and women have shared desires, but they also have different goals at times.
> Homosexuality appeals to that goal or idealation, when genders desires differ.
> It is part of being human. Nothing wrong with it, just the expression of an
> individual (and hardwired due to genetics to boot).
> --
>
> Music Reviews:http://apps.facebook.com/visualcdrack/people/1713595594
> Book Reviews:http://apps.facebook.com/facebookshelf/people/1713595594
> Movie Reviews:http://apps.facebook.com/dvdshelf/people/1713595594
> TV Reviews:http://apps.facebook.com/livingsocial-tv/people/1713595594
> Video Game Reviews:http://apps.facebook.com/videogamerack/people/1713595594
The Grand Canyon is a small crack in the Earth.
Guy Namechanger
"Don Stockbauer" <don.sto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:94e912fa-d5a4-4442...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
=============
The Grand Tetons look like big tits.
Don Stockbauer
wrote:
> "Don Stockbauer" <don.stockba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:94e912fa-d5a4-4442...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 9, 2:13 am, Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Men and women have shared desires, but they also have different goals at
> > times.
> > Homosexuality appeals to that goal or idealation, when genders desires
> > differ.
> > It is part of being human. Nothing wrong with it, just the expression of
> > an
> > individual (and hardwired due to genetics to boot).
> > --
> > Rob
>
> > Music Reviews:http://apps.facebook.com/visualcdrack/people/1713595594
> > Book Reviews:http://apps.facebook.com/facebookshelf/people/1713595594
> > Movie Reviews:http://apps.facebook.com/dvdshelf/people/1713595594
> > TV Reviews:http://apps.facebook.com/livingsocial-tv/people/1713595594
> > Video Game
> > Reviews:http://apps.facebook.com/videogamerack/people/1713595594
>
> The Grand Canyon is a small crack in the Earth.
>
> =============
>
> The Grand Tetons look like big tits.
Hence the name.
Flint
> Men and women have shared desires, but they also have different goals at times.
> Homosexuality appeals to that goal or idealation, when genders desires differ.
> It is part of being human. Nothing wrong with it,
This is a *moral* assertion. On what basis do you make this
assertion? Some might argue that there is no real reason for a gay
gene even to exist (even if it could exist) from a biological
evolutionary POV. After all, it accomplishes nothing towards special
perpetuation, and logically, would be self-terminating... unless of
course such a gene were a *mutated* gene caused by some environmental
factor.
> ... just the expression of an
> individual (and hardwired due to genetics to boot).
Not according to the American Psychiatry Association:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97940
or...
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
or...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/
or...
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp
The "gay gene" theory has been seriously *debunked*. Only folks with
a political agenda keep perpetuating this myth.
Bottom line: Some people are baloney pony smokers because they
*choose* to be...
Flint
Rob Cypher
And that is why genetics allow for homosexuality. If someone wants to screw
someone of their own sex maybe there will be people who are specifically
designed for that purpose. It causes itself.
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented Flint broadcast on alt.gossip.celebrities:
> On 11/9/2009 3:13 AM, Rob Cypher wrote:
>> Men and women have shared desires, but they also have different goals at
>> times. Homosexuality appeals to that goal or idealation, when genders
>> desires differ.
>> It is part of being human. Nothing wrong with it,
> This is a *moral* assertion. On what basis do you make this
> assertion? Some might argue that there is no real reason for a gay
> gene even to exist (even if it could exist) from a biological
There are a number of ways such a gene might come to exist: exactly the same
way that other genetic variations arise. There is "no real reason" any
genetic variation occurs, but it is a fact that genetic variation does
occur.
Then the question would be: why would such a gene persist. I can easily
think of a half-dozen mechanisms by which producing a certain number of gay
people would be a distinct advantage to groups living as we now believe our
ancestors lived one or two million years ago. That would make a "sometimes
gay" gene adaptive and if it ever occurred it would survive on its own
merits.
However, if there were only one cause of homosexuality and it was only gene
of the garden-variety Mendelian sort it almost certainly would have been
discovered by now and it would not explain the "sometimes."
Mendel might have written the first word on genetics, but he did not write
the last. Unfortunately, grade school biology tends to leave genetics with
Mendel and his peas. Nowadays we understand a variety of ways that
"sometimes" attributes can occur. One way is to occur through a combination
of genes, each of which is inherited separately, and upto a point, if those
genes each have some adaptive value on their own, they would survive and the
combination would continue to occur "sometimes" even if it were neutral or
even mildly maladaptive. There are other ways "sometimes" attributes occur,
including epigenetics, a relatively new, exciting, and largely unexplored
field.
> evolutionary POV. After all, it accomplishes nothing towards special
> perpetuation,
You don't know. There are plenty of mechanisms by which it could be
adaptive.
> and logically, would be self-terminating
This is utter bullshit.
> ... unless of
> course such a gene were a *mutated* gene caused by some environmental
> factor.
>> ... just the expression of an
>> individual (and hardwired due to genetics to boot).
> Not according to the American Psychiatry Association:
> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97940
WND --- it is to laugh!
> or...
> http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
Political smear site without a qualified scientist in the lot.
> or...
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/
"The outcome of the 'gay gene' debate is uncertain ..."
Certainly not a sterling refutation.
> or...
> http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp
Religious site opposing evolution. "It's magic!" is not a credible
scientific argument.
> The "gay gene" theory has been seriously *debunked*. Only folks with
> a political agenda keep perpetuating this myth.
There almost certain is not a single, Mendelian gene that accounts for all
homosexuality, but that at least some homosexual is genetically influenced
or determined is still very much an open question.
> Bottom line: Some people are baloney pony smokers because they
> *choose* to be...
Maybe *some* are. So what?
What human liberty is more precious than the right to choose one's most
intimate associates and the person with whom one will share one's life?
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5914, 1993
292 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
Rob Cypher
wrote:
This was the best post in the whole thread.
YOU WIN THE PRIZE BOY!!!!!!!!
http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/you_win_the_prize.jpg
purple
>> Men and women have shared desires, but they also have different goals at times.
>> Homosexuality appeals to that goal or idealation, when genders desires differ.
Bend over, big boy. Here comes Olde One Eye!
(Weren't you on a rooftop in Indio over the weekend? We heard all about it.)
Lord Cyclohexane
>
> Not according to the American Psychiatry Association:
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/
> [...]
> The "gay gene" theory has been seriously *debunked*. Only folks with
> a political agenda keep perpetuating this myth.
>.
> Bottom line: Some people are baloney pony smokers because they
> *choose* to be...
Dear Flint,
Do you know how to read? I mean, how to READ? As in, basic
comprehension of written material? Because if you think you do, you
ought to demand a refund from the Department of Education, because
that PBS article says NOTHING that you think it does.
Here, explain these sentence to me:
"But the underlying idea seemed to carry enormous implications:
Homosexuality was not a choice--"the wrong choice," as many religious
and political leaders have demogogued on the issue. Instead,
homosexuality was as much a biological fact as eye color."
Specifically, reread the "... Homosexuality was not a choice..." and
explain to me how it means, in your words, that "Some people are
baloney pony smokers because they *choose* to be"
Also from the PBS article, please explain this sentence to me:
"Where once the scientific and medical establishment maintained an
unqualified belief that homosexuality was a form of psychological
deviance, today a solid majority of psychiatrists and psychologists
themselves believe in biological theories (genes, brain, prenatal
chemistry) over environmental or psychological theories."
Specifically, reread the "... solid majority [...] believe in
biological theories (genes, brain, prenatal chemistry) ..." and
continue to back up your words above that "The "gay gene" theory has
been seriously *debunked*."
READING SKILLZ! DO YOU HAVE THEM, MOTHERFUCKER?
(Thanks for throwing in the PBS article, though, knowing full well
that most people would never check the article and realize that it
says exactly the OPPOSITE of what you wanted it to say. On a cursory
glance, since you referenced PBS, I assumed that there HAD been some
doubt about the Gay Gene, but now I know there's only doubt about you
having even a single shred of credibility).
-----------
By the way, thanks a fucking bunch for introducing me to the term
"electro-ejaculation." (It's in the first link off of the PBS article
you referenced) That was yet another step on the Path To
Enlightenment that I just plain didn't need to take...
Pisces
Most of human evolution is mutation. Wow. Someone failed freshman
Biology.
Pisces
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural
things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has
legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed
at all like many of the principles on which this great country was
founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites,
and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were
allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-
for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay
couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to
marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more
children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight
parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like
ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country.
That’s why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model
at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to
raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never
adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the
service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Douche Bagelow
be paid any attention
Douche Bagelow
judge.
Rob Cypher
No, you're just living up to your name, "Douche".
That is the only TRUTH in this thread.
Flint
> On Nov 9, 8:24 am, Flint<agent...@section31.org> wrote:
>>
>> Not according to the American Psychiatry Association:
>> [...]
>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/
>> [...]
>> The "gay gene" theory has been seriously *debunked*. Only folks with
>> a political agenda keep perpetuating this myth.
>> .
>> Bottom line: Some people are baloney pony smokers because they
>> *choose* to be...
>
> Dear Flint,
>
> Do you know how to read? I mean, how to READ? As in, basic
> comprehension of written material? Because if you think you do, you
> ought to demand a refund from the Department of Education, because
> that PBS article says NOTHING that you think it does.
>
> Here, explain these sentence to me:
>
> "But the underlying idea seemed to carry enormous implications:
> Homosexuality was not a choice--"the wrong choice," as many religious
> and political leaders have demogogued on the issue. Instead,
> homosexuality was as much a biological fact as eye color."
>
> Specifically, reread the "... Homosexuality was not a choice..." and
> explain to me how it means, in your words, that "Some people are
> baloney pony smokers because they *choose* to be"
Simple: the act of sucking a dick is a matter of *choice* - to wit:
"Hmmm... do I want to suck a cock today, or don't I?", not some gene
that is so overwhelmingly determinative as to behavior.
I see you snipped all of the other links I posted, and chose to simply
zoom in (with laser like focus) the *one sentence* which seems to
support your view.
> Also from the PBS article, please explain this sentence to me:
>
> "Where once the scientific and medical establishment maintained an
> unqualified belief that homosexuality was a form of psychological
> deviance, today a solid majority of psychiatrists and psychologists
> themselves believe in biological theories (genes, brain, prenatal
> chemistry) over environmental or psychological theories."
Note how the phrase "prenatal chemistry" is subtly included with
"genes, brain"?? This is pure intellectual *dishonesty*. Prenatal
chemistry is *affected* by ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS, which lends credence
to the theory that any 'gay gene' that MAY exist is a MUTATION, or an
unintended consequence. The point here is that advocates of the gay
gene theory are attempting to advance the credibility of their theory
by misrepresenting the actual science behind this field of study, or
attempting to achieve "credibility by association".
Furthermore, what so-called "solid majority of psychiatrists and
psychologists" themselves *believe* with regard to biological theories
is *totally irrelevant* as they are dealing with science outside of
their primary area of expertise.
Anyone who simply ignores the fact that homosexuality is NOT the
result of any single 'gay gene' is a clueless moron. Homosexuality is
more likely to be a combination of BOTH *nature* and *nuture*. To
discount socio-enviromental factors simply proves the intellectual
dishonesty of those with an agenda, or at the very least, the practice
of *bad science*.
> Specifically, reread the "... solid majority [...] believe in
> biological theories (genes, brain, prenatal chemistry) ..." and
> continue to back up your words above that "The "gay gene" theory has
> been seriously *debunked*."
>
> READING SKILLZ! DO YOU HAVE THEM, MOTHERFUCKER?
Why do you feel such a need to succumb to such displays of vitriolic
behavior? Maybe that is "genetic" too (or maybe you are you a baloney
poney smoker yourself and feel a need to have an agenda? ::shrug::)
Flint
Pisces
TrekBear
Wrong-o! Just as with other genetic variations, it's inappropriate to
attach any particular stigma to genetic blindness or any other
condition with which a person is born. Homosexuality does not occur
frequently enough to prohibit nor inhibit reproductive success in
breeding-sized populations. I further posit that with a population of
over six billion humans, there's no danger of our going extinct any
time soon.
Flint
> Wrong-o! Just as with other genetic variations, it's inappropriate to
> attach any particular stigma to genetic blindness or any other
> condition with which a person is born.
Again, the moral assertions are a flyin here... And and again, I ask
*why* is it 'inappropriate'? Secondly, what stigma are we talking about?
> Homosexuality does not occur
> frequently enough to prohibit nor inhibit reproductive success in
> breeding-sized populations.
Funny, several sources I've seen advocating equal treatment and
special protection under hate-crimes legislation would have us believe
that anywhere from 10%-30% of the population are gay. That certainly
seems significant to me.
> I further posit that with a population of
> over six billion humans, there's no danger of our going extinct any
> time soon.
And your point is?
Oh, I get it -- sucking dick is OK because it doesn't lead to special
extinction. That's all fine and dandy, except that I never said it
did. That's *your* strawman.
Flint
Pisces
What if you do both, suck cock and eat pussy?
Divine Ma-Schematic
>
> - Show quoted text -
why are you so jealous of me?
Pisces
>
> - Show quoted text -
What are you going on about?
I was asking flint about bisexuality and what particular hell jeebuz
says I am going to for liking both tits and dicks.
Lord Cyclohexane
I don't know why Flint is so against sucking cock... I've always found
it quite a pleasurable experience to receive, and I'm 100% certain
that it doesn't impede reproduction at all. In fact, one of my ex-
girlfriends not only sucked cock but also LOST AN OVARY (I swear that
those two events are unrelated) and yet still went on to breed.
I'll wager that Flint is a eunich, considering just how anti-cock he
is.
Flint
Heh. I guess I have to fess up a bit here...
It not that I'm anti-cock, per se. I really don't care if someone
sucks cock or not, or is gay.
I'm anti_cgay_*agenda*. IOW, I love taking jabs at anyone who seeks
to promote some gay agenda through misrepresentations of actual
science, or employs pseudo-science/skewed research data, or pop myths
for the express purpose of establishing the *morality* of homosexuality.
The way I see it, for *whatever* causes that account for
homosexuality, homosexuality *exists* pure and simple. I just loathe
the dishonesty that somehow seeks to _justify_ homosexuality.
Justification belongs to the realm of the religious or moral mindset,
yet all too often, I see those advocating the 'rightness' of
homosexuality with terminology borrowed from a POV that is
antithetical/adverse to homosexuality. I just find that very odd...
Now, on the surface, I may be a tad cavalier with throwing around
terms like 'cock sucker' or 'baloney pony smoker', I do so with the
specific intent to evoke a response -- a *genuine* response --,
sometimes just to see what reaction I get. Not surprisingly, I often
get these pavlovian like reactions which are often A> forms of special
pleading, or B> non-sequiturs.
Now, back to moralizing homosexuality: STOP DOING IT!
One does not (indeed CANNOT) 'justify' or 'moralize' homosexuality.
These are simply the 'wrong tools' for the job of explaining the
occurance of homosexuality. Furthermore, if one truly feels there is
nothing 'wrong' about gayness, then they should not even ATTEMPT to
justify it ESPECIALLY with terminology borrowed from/devised by those
predisposed to an antithetical POV w/regard to homosexuality.
Its kind of like when so-called atheists and creationists try to use
science to disprove each others assertions about the existence of god
-- IT CAN'T BE DONE! All both sides accomplish is the practice of BAD
SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY.
I have to confess that I too am guilty of this at times, and we often
resort to clumsily borrowing terminology from 'the other side' (so to
speak) to assign or otherwise attribute some moral equivalency to an
empirical observation that simply is ill-fitting.
Flint
Pisces
One can not justify the desire to infringe upon the rights of others
because of ones religious faith.
There is no science which can prove any god real.
Rev. Exo-Skeletal ScalPlan
>
> - Show quoted text -
One can not justify the desire to infringe upon the rights of others
because of one's scientific faith. There is no religion which can
prove any science real. Science can only be SCARED by religion.
Pisces
Thanks for taking the bait on that one. I was trying for a bigger
fish, but I don't mind catching a minnow now and then.
Flint
> One can not justify the desire to infringe upon the rights of others
> because of ones religious faith.
Actually, one *can indeed* justify infringing upon the rights of
others because of religious faith. That's *exactly* what religious
faith *empowers* one to do. Thats at the very *core* of religious faith.
Now if you were to modify that statement just a tad, to wit: "One can
not *legally* infringe upon the rights of others because of ones
religious faith." -- I would be in complete agreement with that.
"Justification" OTOH, does not require "legality" to exist (although
it can recognize and draw support from it).
> There is no science which can prove any god real.
Not at this time there isn't... at least not objectively. But then
science itself is the 'wrong tool' (or more precisely, an incomplete
tool set) for such an endeavor.
Flint
Zapanaz
Thunder crashed, Flint laughed madly, then wrote:
>Actually, one *can indeed* justify infringing upon the rights of
>others because of religious faith. That's *exactly* what religious
>faith *empowers* one to do. Thats at the very *core* of religious faith.
That's true of psychosis, too.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Church of the SubGenius: MENSA for Dummies.
- Rev Egg Plant
:: Currently listening to No 21 in C major K467 Andante ('Elvira Madigan'), 1785, by Mozart, from "Piano Concertos - Vladimir Ashkenazy"
Rev. Susie the Floozie
> On Nov 9, 4:30 am, "Guy Namechanger" <peterduncanismyn...@hotmail.com>
> > The Grand Tetons look like big tits.
>
> Hence the name.
Tell it to Asscrack Valley.
Flint
> Flint hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
> Thunder crashed, Flint laughed madly, then wrote:
>
>> Actually, one *can indeed* justify infringing upon the rights of
>> others because of religious faith. That's *exactly* what religious
>> faith *empowers* one to do. Thats at the very *core* of religious faith.
>
> That's true of psychosis, too.
A very good point. And of course, some would say religious faith *is*
a psychosis. I would say it this is indeed (although not necessarily
always) possible as well.
Flint
Flint
> One can not justify the desire to infringe upon the rights of others
> because of one's scientific faith. There is no religion which can
> prove any science real. Science can only be SCARED by religion.
What is "scientific faith"? To my understanding of faith, this phrase
is practically an oxymoron.
Some people look at faith purely as 'blind belief'. In some people's
view, that is exactly what faith is - blind - or 'seeing without
believing'. To others, faith is more of a capacity to conceive a
thought, or concept with a degree of acuity in mental perception that
it practically is no different from observable (empirical) reality.
It may be blind in a purely physical sense, but it is not blind in a
forward looking, metaphysical, supernatural, or 'spiritual' sense, nor
is it based purely on *nothing*. This is a widely held
misunderstanding of the biblical phrase "eye has not seen" or "beheld".
Faith has power, and is a motivating force that empowers individuals
to courses of action. And just as electricity can refrigerate your
food, heat your home, or power your tv, it can also kill your 3 year
old child if they stick their finger in an electrical socket. Faith
is a force that can either be used or misused the same way, but
*either* way, it is the *same force* that powers both religious ideals
AND scientific theories. Therefore there is no differentiation
between 'scientific' faith and religious faith. These are just two
different ways faith is applied.
Flint
Don Stockbauer
<revsusiethefloo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 5:32 am, DonStockbauer<donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 4:30 am, "Guy Namechanger" <peterduncanismyn...@hotmail.com>
> > > The Grand Tetons look like big tits.
>
> > Hence the name.
>
> Tell it to Asscrack Valley.
"Asscrack Valley, the Grand Tetons look like big tits."