Why homosexuality is un-important in evolution
spintronic
Your morals & logic are so 'out of wack', it's hard to know where to
start.
An animal has 3 desires,
1) Eat,
2) Mate
3) Survive
But animals are dumb.
So when you see a male binobo, trying to mount a male bonobo, you say;
"A bonobo may be genetically programmed to be *GAY*.
Yet when I see a chiwawa trying to hump a toy puppet, I don't say;
"A chiwawa is genetically programmed to be a *Synth-omania*.
Your logic & morals are wacked, you call "black white", and "white
black".
Animals are stoopid, they hump anything that touches their widga.
But when a male humps a male, you go "TA DAR, proof, evolution
produces gays.
Evolution, would not produce any behaviour that
1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
2) Spreads & Causes disease.
3) Turns grown men into strange creatures with squeaky voices, crooked
posture that invites physical abuse.
4) Make people self masacre their reproductive organs by having sex
changes.
You are the cause, (By you I mean society, parents, & peers)
Mark Evans
Spinny, you have a lot of problems as shown by your post.
Primates are not so much predisposed to be gay as they are to have sex
with anything that does not get away/kill them. Humans will have sex
with anything they can. Some folks just have different tastes than
you do.
As to your 4 points, #1 is a little hard to define or argue over. #2
is wrong since evolution is blind and dumb a short term advantage with
long term problems is quite common. #3 is just plain wrong. Indeed,
most gay men I know are in better shape than their straight
counterparts. Voices have nothing to do with orientation. #4
addresses transgendered people, who may or may not be gay. Many of
them wer born with indeterminate gender and have made a choice. Most
gays, male or female, do not want a sex change anymore than straights.
BTW, ask the gays you know. I am sure you know some but they may be
reluctant to let their orientation be known to you for clear reasons.
Mark Evans
richardal...@googlemail.com
So what's your explanation for the widespread records of homosexuality
in many animal societies?
God made them that way?
They were perverted because scientists "believe in" evolution?
All the scientists who have recorded such behaviour are perverts, and
are lying about the evidence because they want to claim scientific
support for their perversions?
Enquiring minds demand an answer.
Not that you will produce one, of course.
RF
IAAH
Wow. Your observations about evolution are even
dumber than your arguments about physics (not
heretofore thought possible).
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
Bertrand Russell
Dana Tweedy
> That thread was rediculous.
>
> Your morals & logic are so 'out of wack', it's hard to know where to
> start.
Yet you produce a post showing your own lack of morals, and logic.
>
> An animal has 3 desires,
>
> 1) Eat,
> 2) Mate
> 3) Survive
Humans are animals, and have the same "desires".
>
> But animals are dumb.
The term "dumb" as used to refer to animals means they can't speak, or at
least speak in human languages. Animals do have varying levels of
intelligence. Calling animals "dumb" meaning unintelligent shows a lack of
understanding of animal behavior.
>
> So when you see a male binobo, trying to mount a male bonobo, you say;
>
> "A bonobo may be genetically programmed to be *GAY*.
Or that homosexuality in animals may have a genetic component. Not the same
thing.
>
> Yet when I see a chiwawa trying to hump a toy puppet, I don't say;
>
> "A chiwawa is genetically programmed to be a *Synth-omania*.
"Humping" in canine populations is more a dominance display than simply
sexual. It's seen in wild canind populations as well. The chihuahua in
your case would be transferring the dominance behavior to a toy, most likely
because it doesn't have another outlet.
>
> Your logic & morals are wacked, you call "black white", and "white
> black".
or perhaps, you need to see there are shades of gray.
>
> Animals are stoopid, they hump anything that touches their widga.
Animals are driven by their instincts, and to an extent so are human beings,
(who are animals after all) The vast majority of animal behavior is much
more complex than you you seem to think.
>
> But when a male humps a male, you go "TA DAR, proof, evolution
> produces gays.
Evolution itself doesn't explain homosexual behavior, but it's part of the
equasion.
>
> Evolution, would not produce any behaviour that
>
> 1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
Homosexuality doens't necessarily cause "populations depletion". As long
as the rest of the population is reproducing, the population doesn't
decline.
> 2) Spreads & Causes disease.
Homosexuality doesn't spread disease any more than other human behaviors.
Homosexuality doesn't cause disease either.
> 3) Turns grown men into strange creatures with squeaky voices, crooked
> posture that invites physical abuse.
This indicates more of your own fear and hatred than anything else. The
vast majority of homosexual males are not as you describe. Nor does any
"posture" of a human being invite physical abuse. If you choose to abuse
another human, that's your own fear, and hatred, not anything to do with the
behavior of others.
> 4) Make people self masacre their reproductive organs by having sex
> changes.
The vast majority of homosexuals are not transsexuals. Again, you display
much that indicates your own demons.
>
> You are the cause, (By you I mean society, parents, & peers)
The cause of homosexual behavior is not readily known. To claim it's the
result of "society, parents, and peers" shows a massive ignorance and
prejudice.
DJT
spintronic
.
> Spinny, you have a lot of problems as shown by your post.
Apparently. I don't have any problems.
I understand that a male penis is supposed to go in a female vegina.
Let me guess.
You keep placing your money in the bin, when it actually goes in the
bank.
And you can't understand why the bin doesn't pay you interest on your
investment?
> Primates are not so much predisposed to be gay as they are to have sex
> with anything that does not get away/kill them.
That's my whole argument.
But plz. Tell the *GAYBRIGADE*, that, that does not mean evolution
selects gayness.
> Humans will have sex with anything they can.
If you're as ugly as Y.O.O maybe. But that's another argument.
> Some folks just have different tastes than you do.
That may be.
But what I won't accept, are the loonballs, who say *gayness* has a
*USEFULL* place in evolution.
> As to your 4 points, #1 is a little hard to define or argue over.
I thought it was *BLACK & WHITE*.
100% gay sexual activity produces 0% offspring.
> #2 is wrong since evolution is blind and dumb a short term advantage with
> long term problems is quite common.
Gayness *IS NOT* a "short-term" advantage.
Yet has *long-term* problems.
So your argument is mute.
> #3 is just plain wrong. Indeed,
> most gay men I know are in better shape than their straight
> counterparts.
So what?.
They could be supermen, as far as evolution is concerned.
But they can't pass on anything.
And as far as your "GAY MEN = ATHELETS" theory. It's crap.
The gays I know, act like women, hand on hips, squeeky voices,
absolutely *NO* evolutionary advantage at all.
> #4 addresses transgendered people, who may or may not be gay
Why are you saying "MAY OR MAY NOT BE GAY"?
If a guy, has an operation to *TRY* to perpetuate the personification
of femininity, he is GAY!
> Many of them wer born with indeterminate gender and have made a choice.
The only cases I can think of is either XXY, or XYY.
But that's a whole different argument. And the only natural choices
are:
XXY = XY
XYY = Y
> Most gays, male or female, do not want a sex change anymore than straights.
I agree.
> BTW, ask the gays you know. I am sure you know some but they may be
> reluctant to let their orientation be known to you for clear reasons.
I know lots of gays, A few have asked me out.
This has nothing to do with *MY* personal life.
spintronic
Ah, another fan?
spintronic
> spintronic wrote:
> > That thread was rediculous.
.
> > Your morals & logic are so 'out of wack', it's hard to know where to
> > start.
>
> Yet you produce a post showing your own lack of morals, and logic.
I don't claim to have morals, only logic.
> > So when you see a male binobo, trying to mount a male bonobo, you say;
>
> > "A bonobo may be genetically programmed to be *GAY*.
>
> Or that homosexuality in animals may have a genetic component. Not the same
> thing.
Of course it's the same thing YOU FUCKING TWIT!
(sorry, I swear at supposed intelligent people who *ACT* like retards,
Hence my screaming at weirdo.)
> > Yet when I see a chiwawa trying to hump a toy puppet, I don't say;
>
> > "A chiwawa is genetically programmed to be a *Synth-omania*.
>
> "Humping" in canine populations is more a dominance display than simply
> sexual.
FFS, why am I talking to the dog whisperer?
> It's seen in wild canind populations as well. The chihuahua in
> your case would be transferring the dominance behavior to a toy, most likely
> because it doesn't have another outlet.
Tell that to my brother's leg.
> > Your logic & morals are wacked, you call "black white", and "white
> > black".
>
> or perhaps, you need to see there are shades of gray.
2+2 =4.
where is the gray area?
> > Animals are stoopid, they hump anything that touches their widga.
>
> Animals are driven by their instincts, and to an extent so are human beings,
> (who are animals after all)
So, if a member of *your* family humps a 12 year old, and we all go to
court.
*YOUR* argument would be; "But your honour, we're all animals".
Errrrm, sorry. But *YOU* & *I* know human's have a different moral
code.
> The vast majority of animal behavior is much more complex than you you seem to think.
Are you telling the Judge, or me?
> > But when a male humps a male, you go "TA DAR, proof, evolution
> > produces gays.
>
> Evolution itself doesn't explain homosexual behavior, but it's part of the
> equasion.
*NOTHING* explains *human*-homosexual behaviour, except a
disfunctional mind.
Disfunctional mind's are produced by (society, family, peers)
> > Evolution, would not produce any behaviour that
>
> > 1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
>
> Homosexuality doens't necessarily cause "populations depletion".
Really?
I have 1 scenario.
1) Make everyone homosexual. And watch the population deplete.
> As long as the rest of the population is reproducing, the population doesn't
> decline.
So it's *O.K* for *YOU* to be gay, so long as *NOONE* else is.
Wow, I have a funny feeling (AGAIN).
It's a warm fuzzy feeling, by *ALWAYS* being in the right!
You should try it!
Earle Jones
<9194f959-c0f0-4c45...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"richardal...@googlemail.com"
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 5:36�pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > That thread was rediculous.
> >
> > Your morals & logic are so 'out of wack', it's hard to know where to
> > start.
> >
> > An animal has 3 desires,
> >
> > 1) Eat,
> > 2) Mate
> > 3) Survive
> >
> > But animals are dumb.
> >
> > So when you see a male binobo, trying to mount a male bonobo, you say;
> >
> > "A bonobo may be genetically programmed to be *GAY*.
> >
> > Yet when I see a chiwawa trying to hump a toy puppet...
*
I'll bet you studied phonics.
earle
*
spintronic
.
> So what's your explanation for the widespread records of homosexuality
> in many animal societies?
It's already there. And it's more simple than *complex* homosexual
behaviour.
Animals have 3 drives, one of the is to mate.
Calling a male animal that humps a male animal "homosexual",
Is as crazy as calling a dog who humps a table leg a carpenter!
> God made them that way?
Which? to excuse your behaviour by "males humping males", or to say it
as it is "by males humping table legs"?
> They were perverted because scientists "believe in" evolution?
I never called anyone a pervert.
> All the scientists who have recorded such behaviour are perverts,
Why would you say they are?
> and are lying about the evidence because they want to claim scientific
> support for their perversions?
Hmmm, a population hammer, hitting a population nail.
> Enquiring minds demand an answer.
>
> Not that you will produce one, of course.
Why would I produce one?
spintronic
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > spintronic wrote:
>
> [..]
I'm glad you made this post, and I'm glad, my replying fucks up your
attempt to delete your own post.
> >> Evolution, would not produce any behaviour that
>
> >> 1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
>
> > Homosexuality doens't necessarily cause "populations depletion". As
> > long as the rest of the population is reproducing, the population
> > doesn't decline.
>
> Not too mention the fact that many homosexuals *do* reproduce.
>
> For example, many people get married and have children before they even
> dare admit to themselves that they are gay (this happens more in
> societies where homosexuality is looked down upon). Or if people are
> already in a same sex relationship, they may get help of a friend of the
> other sex.
So then,
A *Perfect* male. can produce kids, move on, and live a gay life.
Question's:
1) What about the kids?
2) What about the kids?
3) What about the kids?
4) Are you saying this is healthy?
4a) for whom?
5) Who looks after the kids?
5a) Mum?
5b) Dad?
5c) Gayday's boyfriend?
5d) Mums rebound parent figure?
So after all of that shit.
what happens next?
1) Kid is angry?
2) Kid is angry?
3) Kid is angry?
4) Kid is angry?
5) Kid is angry?
6) Kid is angry?
Then what?
richardal...@googlemail.com
What a simplistic world you live in. Just as well that scientists
don't think that questions can be solved thy throwing ignorance and
dogma at them.
> > God made them that way?
>
> Which? to excuse your behaviour by "males humping males", or to say it
> as it is "by males humping table legs"?
>
> > They were perverted because scientists "believe in" evolution?
>
> I never called anyone a pervert.
>
> > All the scientists who have recorded such behaviour are perverts,
>
> Why would you say they are?
>
> > and are lying about the evidence because they want to claim scientific
> > support for their perversions?
>
> Hmmm, a population hammer, hitting a population nail.
>
> > Enquiring minds demand an answer.
>
> > Not that you will produce one, of course.
>
> Why would I produce one?
You wouldn't. That's because you're an ignorant creationist who sees
science and education as a threat.
Point made.
RF
Kermit
> That thread was rediculous.
>
> Your morals & logic are so 'out of wack', it's hard to know where to
> start.
What do morals have to do with describing the world around us?
Let's accept, for the sake of argument, your number one premiss here,
not explicitly stated:
That gay sex is something gone wrong.
Where did *any evolutionary scientist ever say that evolution happens,
therefore nothing goes wrong?
In fact, in scientific circles, the argument about whether
homosexuality has been selected for depends largely on whether or not
the genes are maintained by selection.
I'm nearsighted; do you think that:
Evolutionists would claim that this was selected for?
It has anything to do with morality?
It is evidence for God? ("Thanks heaps, God!")
Sometimes, like with sickle cell trait, an inheritable trait *is
selected for, no matter how counter-intuitive it might seem at first
glance.
>
> An animal has 3 desires,
>
> 1) Eat,
> 2) Mate
> 3) Survive
>
> But animals are dumb.
Hmm. <Looks speculatively at Spintronic>
>
> So when you see a male binobo, trying to mount a male bonobo, you say;
>
> "A bonobo may be genetically programmed to be *GAY*.
>
> Yet when I see a chiwawa trying to hump a toy puppet, I don't say;
>
> "A chiwawa is genetically programmed to be a *Synth-omania*.
>
> Your logic & morals are wacked, you call "black white", and "white
> black".
It could be that sexual animals are programmed to respond to anything
with enough cues. Like, say, naughty pictures.
>
> Animals are stoopid, they hump anything that touches their widga.
>
Not humans though. We only *behave like guinea pigs, actually we doing
it because we hate Baby Jesus. Or something.
Really, pointing out that this behavior is common throughout that
vertebrates is not helping your case when you insist that "we are
*completely *different, so there!" The simplest response is that we
are obviously doing pretty much the same thing our simple-minded
cousins are, only in a more complicated manner.
> But when a male humps a male, you go "TA DAR, proof, evolution
> produces gays.
>
> Evolution, would not produce any behaviour that
>
> 1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
Like the Catholic Church...
> 2) Spreads & Causes disease.
Like sickle cell trait? Like cities?
> 3) Turns grown men into strange creatures with squeaky voices, crooked
> posture that invites physical abuse.
That invite... dude, you need help. Really.
Besides: Alexander the Great. Achilles. Heracles.
> 4) Make people self masacre their reproductive organs by having sex
> changes.
Unless, of course, they have brain and gender mismatches.
>
> You are the cause, (By you I mean society, parents, & peers)
This must explain your chihuahua and its party doll.
Look, if you want to argue that this behavior or that does not improve
reproductive success, fine. Evolutionary scientists do that all the
time. But you can't say "X is bad for reproduction, therefore
evolution doesn't happen".
Cancer does not refute evolutionary theory.
My myopia does not refute evolutionary theory.
*If gay sex is not associated with the spread of any alleles that
sometimes express as gay sex then either it is something that goes
wrong, or something is happening that we don't understand. Note that
"going wrong" is not a value judgement. My myopia is something that
went wrong (a mutation that does not enhance reproduction), but it is
not a fatal gene.
This is an area of heated argument, not because it gets you all hot
and bothered, but because there isn't enough data yet to come to a
consensus.
Also, many of our genes *were selected for, but in the modern world
they turn out to be destructive. The blood sugar chemistry that leads
to diabetes, or the propensity most people have for sitting on their
butts instead of running for ten hours on the savannah. Our tendency
to see powerful entities when we look at clouds or burn marks on
tortillas. These had survival and reproductive advantages 100,000
years ago, but the world changed... Perhaps gay sex genes, if there
are any, are like that. Or they're just variety, like eye color. In
rapidly changing human societies, who knows what sexual proclivities
will have reproductive advantages?
Kermit
Kermit
> On 10 Nov, 18:54, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > spintronic wrote:
> > > That thread was rediculous.
> .
> > > Your morals & logic are so 'out of wack', it's hard to know where to
> > > start.
>
> > Yet you produce a post showing your own lack of morals, and logic.
>
> I don't claim to have morals, only logic.
>
> > > So when you see a male binobo, trying to mount a male bonobo, you say;
>
> > > "A bonobo may be genetically programmed to be *GAY*.
>
> > Or that homosexuality in animals may have a genetic component. Not the same
> > thing.
>
> Of course it's the same thing YOU FUCKING TWIT!
No, it's not. All genetic traits interact with the environment, and
some traits, - such as human behavior - are *very dependent on the
environment, and are a complex interactions of survival strategies and
conditioned responses learned in childhood, social rewards and
punishments, interactions with other genes, etc.
Some are more independent, but none of them are completely so.
>
> (sorry, I swear at supposed intelligent people who *ACT* like retards,
> Hence my screaming at weirdo.)
It's OK, we're used to that from you.
>
> > > Yet when I see a chiwawa trying to hump a toy puppet, I don't say;
>
> > > "A chiwawa is genetically programmed to be a *Synth-omania*.
>
> > "Humping" in canine populations is more a dominance display than simply
> > sexual.
>
> FFS, why am I talking to the dog whisperer?
So why does gay sex suddenly become so prominent in male prisons? Do
you doubt that it is largely an expression of hostility and dominance?
Sometimes behavior serves dual purposes.
>
> > It's seen in wild canind populations as well. The chihuahua in
> > your case would be transferring the dominance behavior to a toy, most likely
> > because it doesn't have another outlet.
>
> Tell that to my brother's leg.
Are you seriously suggesting that your brother's leg is a legitimate
outlet for a chihuahua's sexual instinct, and is readily available to
them all?
>
> > > Your logic & morals are wacked, you call "black white", and "white
> > > black".
>
> > or perhaps, you need to see there are shades of gray.
>
> 2+2 =4.
Ah, yes. You *like simple models, with clear demarcations.
>
> where is the gray area?
>
> > > Animals are stoopid, they hump anything that touches their widga.
>
> > Animals are driven by their instincts, and to an extent so are human beings,
> > (who are animals after all)
>
> So, if a member of *your* family humps a 12 year old, and we all go to
> court.
A thirteen year old member of the family? A brain damaged member? An
unconscious drunk, a sleepwalker, a self-centered jerk just released
from prison? Circumstances matter.
>
> *YOUR* argument would be; "But your honour, we're all animals".
No. Apparently, like most simple-minded authoritarians, you cannot
tell the difference between explanations and excuses.
>
> Errrrm, sorry. But *YOU* & *I* know human's have a different moral
> code.
Yes. If this were another country or another time, it might be
acceptable.
>
> > The vast majority of animal behavior is much more complex than you you seem to think.
>
> Are you telling the Judge, or me?
You are not a judge; and there are no molested children here. You
think that your emotions triggered by the thought of gay sex are a
sound foundation for arguing about the nature of the world. It is not.
What does child molesting have to do with gay sex? Most child
molesters are straight adult males.
>
> > > But when a male humps a male, you go "TA DAR, proof, evolution
> > > produces gays.
>
> > Evolution itself doesn't explain homosexual behavior, but it's part of the
> > equasion.
>
> *NOTHING* explains *human*-homosexual behaviour, except a
> disfunctional mind.
Perhaps. Do you have any evidence for this other than your own
dysfunctional mind?
>
> Disfunctional mind's are produced by (society, family, peers)
Or problems in development. Probably even genetic components, altho
that is not the usual case.
>
> > > Evolution, would not produce any behaviour that
>
> > > 1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
>
> > Homosexuality doens't necessarily cause "populations depletion".
>
> Really?
Correct.
>
> I have 1 scenario.
>
> 1) Make everyone homosexual. And watch the population deplete.
Make everybody heterosexual male, and count the births.
>
> > As long as the rest of the population is reproducing, the population doesn't
> > decline.
>
> So it's *O.K* for *YOU* to be gay, so long as *NOONE* else is.
No, we only need enough.
Just as we need a balance of males and females. children and adults,
young adults, and silverbacks.
>
> Wow, I have a funny feeling (AGAIN).
>
> It's a warm fuzzy feeling, by *ALWAYS* being in the right!
Shouting incoherently really doesn't guarantee your being right. In
fact, it argues against it.
>
> You should try it!
It must really be a joy to be your neighbor.
<rolls eyes>
Kermit
Kermit
<snip>
>
> what happens next?
>
> 1) Kid is angry?
> 2) Kid is angry?
> 3) Kid is angry?
> 4) Kid is angry?
> 5) Kid is angry?
> 6) Kid is angry?
>
> Then what?
Too much information, Spin.
Kermit
Burkhard
> On Nov 10, 11:29 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have 1 scenario.
>
> > 1) Make everyone homosexual. And watch the population deplete.
>
> Make everybody heterosexual male, and count the births.
>
>
>
> > > As long as the rest of the population is reproducing, the population doesn't
> > > decline.
>
> > So it's *O.K* for *YOU* to be gay, so long as *NOONE* else is.
>
> No, we only need enough.
>
> Just as we need a balance of males and females. children and adults,
> young adults, and silverbacks.
>
>
second hand these days, so comments on your post Kermit.
I think his "scenario" is a fascinating example into the mindset of
the right wing authoritarian religious fanatic. They just can't
understand the idea that diversity can be a good thing in itself So
either homosexuality is good, and then we all should be gay, or it is
bad, and then we all should be straight. The idea that some things
are not of the type that "good" or bad" makes sense, or that
regularly, the greatest good for a group is if _not_ everybody wants
the same thing is just not something they can conceptually cope with.
Hence the "if you are not with me, you are evil" of our creationists,
and of course their intolerance not just to atheists, but to religions
different from theirs.
SilentOtto
Homosexuality isn't about what an animal humps.
It's about what it -wants- to hump.
Your male dog might be humping a table leg. But, show him a bitch in
heat and he'll stop humping the table leg in favor of the bitch in a
big hurry.
What gets science's attention isn't when one animal is trying to mate
with a member of the same sex. It's when receptive members of the
opposite sex are available and the animal -still- prefers to mate with
a member of the same sex.
That can only be described as homosexuality and has been observed in
nature.
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>That thread was rediculous.
>
>But when a male humps a male, you go "TA DAR, proof, evolution
>produces gays.
>
>Evolution, would not produce any behaviour that
>
>1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
>2) Spreads & Causes disease.
>3) Turns grown men into strange creatures with squeaky voices, crooked
>posture that invites physical abuse.
>4) Make people self masacre their reproductive organs by having sex
>changes.
>
>You are the cause, (By you I mean society, parents, & peers)
well let's see. so far he's advocated the murder of homosexuals so, i
suppose, this is an improvement. here he's not advocating gays should
be killed...just that they're fags and should be hated
given that most christians are homophobes, i guess this is a step up
from them advocating death
spintronic
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 7:49 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
> > Animals have 3 drives, one of the is to mate.
>
> > Calling a male animal that humps a male animal "homosexual",
>
> > Is as crazy as calling a dog who humps a table leg a carpenter!
.
.
> What a simplistic world you live in.
Yes, it's that simple.
You call a male dog who humps a male dog gay,
And yet a male dog who humps a tableleg is called a carpenter.
> Just as well that scientists
> don't think that questions can be solved thy throwing ignorance and
> dogma at them.
I agree.
But you're no scientist, and anyone who disagrees with me isn't one
either.
Dana Tweedy
> On 10 Nov, 18:54, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> spintronic wrote:
>>> That thread was rediculous.
> .
>>> Your morals & logic are so 'out of wack', it's hard to know where to
>>> start.
>>
>> Yet you produce a post showing your own lack of morals, and logic.
>
> I don't claim to have morals, only logic.
Unfortunately, you don't appear to have either.
>
>
>>> So when you see a male binobo, trying to mount a male bonobo, you
>>> say;
>>
>>> "A bonobo may be genetically programmed to be *GAY*.
>>
>> Or that homosexuality in animals may have a genetic component. Not
>> the same
>> thing.
>
>
> Of course it's the same thing YOU FUCKING TWIT!
Sorry, but it's not. There is a difference between homosexuality having a
genetic component, and being "programmed" to be homosexual.
>
> (sorry, I swear at supposed intelligent people who *ACT* like retards,
> Hence my screaming at weirdo.)
>
>
>
>>> Yet when I see a chiwawa trying to hump a toy puppet, I don't say;
>>
>>> "A chiwawa is genetically programmed to be a *Synth-omania*.
>>
>> "Humping" in canine populations is more a dominance display than
>> simply
>> sexual.
>
>
> FFS, why am I talking to the dog whisperer?
I have no idea why you'd be talking to the dog whisperer, instead of
replying to me. However in the example you mentioned a "chiwawa" which I
presumed you meant "chihuahua" a breed of dog.
>
>
>> It's seen in wild canind populations as well. The chihuahua in
>> your case would be transferring the dominance behavior to a toy,
>> most likely
>> because it doesn't have another outlet.
>
> Tell that to my brother's leg.
Tell your brother to come on over and I'll tell it to his leg.
>
>
>>> Your logic & morals are wacked, you call "black white", and "white
>>> black".
>>
>> or perhaps, you need to see there are shades of gray.
>
>
> 2+2 =4.
Yes. Your point?
>
> where is the gray area?
Inbetween "black and white". Mathmatical formulas are mere abstractions.
>
>
>
>>> Animals are stoopid, they hump anything that touches their widga.
>>
>> Animals are driven by their instincts, and to an extent so are human
>> beings, (who are animals after all)
>
>
> So, if a member of *your* family humps a 12 year old, and we all go to
> court.
If that family member is one of my dogs, it's much less likely. Note
that abusing a 12 year old is much different from sexual activity between
consenting adults. Please try to keep on topic.
>
> *YOUR* argument would be; "But your honour, we're all animals".
No, my "argument" would be, "why are you picking on my dogs"?
>
> Errrrm, sorry. But *YOU* & *I* know human's have a different moral
> code.
Different human cultures have different moral codes. That doesn't mean
that humans are not animals, and subject to instincts. In any case, you
are getting off topic. We were discussing homosexual behavior in animals,
not statutory rape in human culture.
>
>> The vast majority of animal behavior is much more complex than you
>> you seem to think.
>
> Are you telling the Judge, or me?
You may tell he judge whatever you like. It's irrelevant to the discussion
we are having.
>
>
>>> But when a male humps a male, you go "TA DAR, proof, evolution
>>> produces gays.
>>
>> Evolution itself doesn't explain homosexual behavior, but it's part
>> of the
>> equasion.
>
>
> *NOTHING* explains *human*-homosexual behaviour, except a
> disfunctional mind.
>
That's odd, your own disfunctional mind hasn't explained it.
> Disfunctional mind's are produced by (society, family, peers)
You haven't demonstrated that homosexuality is a product of a "dysfunctional
mind". You've just asserted it. As animal studies have shown,
homosexuality is not dysfunctional.
>
>
>
>>> Evolution, would not produce any behaviour that
>>
>>> 1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
>>
>> Homosexuality doens't necessarily cause "populations depletion".
>
>
> Really?
Yes really. Do you see any "population depletion" in modern human
populations. In fact, there is population overabundance.
>
> I have 1 scenario.
I'm sure you do. Just keep it out of public, and noone will mind.
>
> 1) Make everyone homosexual. And watch the population deplete.
How would that be relevant to the discussion? I didn't say that everyone
should be homosexual, or that if everyone was homosexual, that there not be
some impact on population. Your claimm was that homosexuality within a
population causes population depletion. Obviously this is not so.
>
>
>> As long as the rest of the population is reproducing, the population
>> doesn't decline.
>
>
>
> So it's *O.K* for *YOU* to be gay, so long as *NOONE* else is.
I don't care to be gay at all. I'm quite happy to be heterosexual.
However my point is that having homosexuals in the population does not cause
"population depletion". You might as well claim that having celebate
priests in the population causes "population depletion".
>
>
> Wow, I have a funny feeling (AGAIN).
Take a cold shower, but keep me out of your fantsies, please. I have enough
trouble with Ray lusting after me.
>
>
> It's a warm fuzzy feeling, by *ALWAYS* being in the right!
Since you aren't right, are you sure it's that feeling?
>
> You should try it!
I'd prefer to be correct, and not homophobic like you.
DJT
spintronic
> spintronic wrote:
> > On 10 Nov, 18:54, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> >> spintronic wrote:
> >>> That thread was rediculous.
> > .
> >>> Your morals & logic are so 'out of wack', it's hard to know where to
> >>> start.
>
> >> Yet you produce a post showing your own lack of morals, and logic.
>
> > I don't claim to have morals, only logic.
>
> Unfortunately, you don't appear to have either.
>
>
>
> >>> So when you see a male binobo, trying to mount a male bonobo, you
> >>> say;
>
> >>> "A bonobo may be genetically programmed to be *GAY*.
>
> >> Or that homosexuality in animals may have a genetic component. Not
> >> the same
> >> thing.
.
> > Of course it's the same thing YOU FUCKING TWIT!
>
> Sorry, but it's not. There is a difference between homosexuality having a
> genetic component, and being "programmed" to be homosexual.
Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. NO.
A "genetic component" is a program you twit!
> >> "Humping" in canine populations is more a dominance display than
> >> simply
> >> sexual.
>
> > FFS, why am I talking to the dog whisperer?
>
> I have no idea why you'd be talking to the dog whisperer, instead of
> replying to me.
You are pretending to be one and the same.
> However in the example you mentioned a "chiwawa" which I
> presumed you meant "chihuahua" a breed of dog.
Who gives a shit. google them both.
My point was, a dog at the dinner table.
Dana Tweedy
> On 10 Nov, 19:48, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>> spintronic wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>
>
> I'm glad you made this post, and I'm glad, my replying fucks up your
> attempt to delete your own post.
Who, other than Ray attempts to delete their own posts?
>
>
>>>> Evolution, would not produce any behaviour that
>>
>>>> 1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
>>
>>> Homosexuality doens't necessarily cause "populations depletion". As
>>> long as the rest of the population is reproducing, the population
>>> doesn't decline.
>>
>> Not too mention the fact that many homosexuals *do* reproduce.
>>
>> For example, many people get married and have children before they
>> even dare admit to themselves that they are gay (this happens more in
>> societies where homosexuality is looked down upon). Or if people are
>> already in a same sex relationship, they may get help of a friend of
>> the other sex.
>
> So then,
>
>
> A *Perfect* male. can produce kids, move on, and live a gay life.
Why do you assume such is a 'perfect male'? Having fantasies again,
Spinny? Nmp's point, as I understand it is that some homosexuals do
reproduce, so that the genetic component for homosexuality is not lost
through lack of reproduction.
>
>
> Question's:
>
> 1) What about the kids?
What about them?
> 2) What about the kids?
What about them?
> 3) What about the kids?
What about them?
Children of homosexual males and of homosexual females don't normally suffer
any developmental or physical difficulties
>
> 4) Are you saying this is healthy?
Homosexual behavior is not more unhealthy for the individual than
heterosexual behavior, as long as one uses protection. Much more venerial
diseases are spread by heterosexual behavior than are spread by homosexual
behavior.
> 4a) for whom?
Exactly my point. Sex is a risky business for anyone, but if one
practices precautions, it can be much safer.
>
> 5) Who looks after the kids?
The parents. Who else?
> 5a) Mum?
Sure.
> 5b) Dad?
Sure, why not?
> 5c) Gayday's boyfriend?
Again, why not? "Gaydad's boyfriend" is no more likely to harm the
childen than "Straightdad's girlfriend".
> 5d) Mums rebound parent figure?
Again, why not?
>
> So after all of that shit.
What "excrement" are you talking about?
>
>
> what happens next?
The kids grow up.
>
> 1) Kid is angry?
What is the kid angry about?
> 2) Kid is angry?
What is the kid angry about?
> 3) Kid is angry?
Angry about what?
> 4) Kid is angry?
Angry about what?
> 5) Kid is angry?
Angry about what?
> 6) Kid is angry?
Angry about what?
>
> Then what?
Your fantasy doesn't play out, and the kids grow up like any other kids.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> Sorry, but it's not. There is a difference between homosexuality
>> having a genetic component, and being "programmed" to be homosexual.
>
>
> Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. NO.
>
> A "genetic component" is a program you twit!
No, a "genetic component" means it's part of the answer, not the whole
thing. Genes aren't a program, they are more closely anlalogus to a
recipie.
>
>>>> "Humping" in canine populations is more a dominance display than
>>>> simply
>>>> sexual.
>>
>>> FFS, why am I talking to the dog whisperer?
>>
>> I have no idea why you'd be talking to the dog whisperer, instead of
>> replying to me.
>
>
> You are pretending to be one and the same.
Again, it's odd that you imagine that to be so. You brought up some
behavior in a canine, and I was pointing out that such behavior is not
unnatural. How does that translate into me "pretending" to be Ceasar
Millian?
>
>
>> However in the example you mentioned a "chiwawa" which I
>> presumed you meant "chihuahua" a breed of dog.
>
>
> Who gives a shit. google them both.
Either way, it's a dog, and so discussing canine behavior is relevant.
>
>
> My point was, a dog at the dinner table.
Your example, however, was a dog displacing it's normal dominance behavior
onto a stuffed toy. The "dinner table" didn't enter into it.
DJT
All-Seeing-I
> start.
>
>
> 1) Eat,
> 2) Mate
> 3) Survive
>
> But animals are dumb.
>
>
> "A bonobo may be genetically programmed to be *GAY*.
>
>
> "A chiwawa is genetically programmed to be a *Synth-omania*.
>
> black".
>
>
> produces gays.
>
>
> 1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
> 3) Turns grown men into strange creatures with squeaky voices, crooked
> posture that invites physical abuse.
> 4) Make people self masacre their reproductive organs by having sex
> changes.
>
> You are the cause, (By you I mean society, parents, & peers)
Well... from a biological view point, the 'human' anus is clearly
meant as an exit for waste removal and not as an entrance of
reproductive material.
Some offer a lame analogy that a particular bird has an anus with both
functions. Which is nothing short of grabbing at straws. Because birds
are not human. And even if there was a single species of bird that
used the anus for a duel purpose, that is hardly evidence for the anus
in humans to have a duel purpose.
A small percentage of homosexual behavior can be seen in nature. But
the percent in nature is sometimes a show of dominance. Which cuts
that small percent even lower. Compare that to a larger percentage of
the human population that is gay and it is not difficult to
understand that the majority of human homosexuality is by choice.
Which brings me back to my original statement. It is a bad choice to
use an exit opening as an entrance for reproductive material, if for
no other reason, it is a health issue.
All-Seeing-I
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > spintronic wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>
> >> 1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
>
> > Homosexuality doens't necessarily cause "populations depletion". As
> > long as the rest of the population is reproducing, the population
> > doesn't decline.
>
>
> For example, many people get married and have children before they even
> dare admit to themselves that they are gay (this happens more in
> societies where homosexuality is looked down upon). Or if people are
> already in a same sex relationship, they may get help of a friend of the
> other sex.
They reproduced with hetro sex moron.
spintronic
.
> > I'm glad you made this post, and I'm glad, my replying fucks up your
> > attempt to delete your own post.
>
> Who, other than Ray attempts to delete their own posts?
Shhh, perhaps you have an nmp spy among you.
> > So then,
>
> > A *Perfect* male. can produce kids, move on, and live a gay life.
>
> Why do you assume such is a 'perfect male'?
I don't, but someone upthread said they were fitter. (My Guess: he's
gayness clouds his judgement)
> Having fantasies again, Spinny?
Of course, I wish I ran 15-miles a day instead of 4, then I'd be
*YOUR* "Perfect male*.
> Nmp's point, as I understand it is that some homosexuals do
> reproduce, so that the genetic component for homosexuality is not lost
> through lack of reproduction.
As I understand it, T21 patients reproduce too.
Should we give them a gold star?
> > Question's:
>
> > 1) What about the kids?
>
> What about them?
Obviously I cant respond (personally) to you without your profile.
My guess.
1) Kid goes to school. Everyone has male/female parents, but this kid
has male/male, or female/female.
Result: Abuse.
Personal info ( I had to wear the same cloth's 5 days a week, Abuse
hurts)
2) Children are *biologically* wired to love 2 parents.
Result:, (Who are my parent's)
3) Female/female parents, will teach their daughters to be lesbian.
Result, (Lesbian/lesbian, relationships, 0 progeny)
4) Male/male parents, will teach their sons to be gay.
Result, (Gay/gay relationships, 0 progeny)
5) Gay is pervert.
Result: Abuse kids.
6) Lesbian is pervert.
Result: Abuse kids.
Now, from 1 - 6. I don't see a healthy result.
But then again, smokers, don't give a shit about asthma sufferers.
> > 3) What about the kids?
>
> What about them?
>
> Children of homosexual males and of homosexual females don't normally suffer
> any developmental or physical difficulties
Fuck off. And you know this how?
This practice wass made legal in the last 20 years.
Great scientist, to make a study on that data.
Tell me, have you applied your data to the general populus?
ANSWER: NO!
> > 4) Are you saying this is healthy?
>
> Homosexual behavior is not more unhealthy for the individual than
> heterosexual behavior, as long as one uses protection.
Hang on, are you saying *ANIMALS* use protection?
Wow, we have a genius in our circle.
> Much more venerial diseases are spread by heterosexual behavior than are spread by homosexual
> behavior.
I doubt it, but I'm glad you brought it up.
The bible 2000+ years ago said as much.
(Now don't be silly and ask for scripture. You know the bible has
them, and you'll look silly in a day or so)
> > 4a) for whom?
>
> Exactly my point. Sex is a risky business for anyone, but if one
> practices precautions, it can be much safer.
Tell that to the bonobos.
> > 5) Who looks after the kids?
>
> The parents. Who else?
And you wonder why peoples morals are screwed?
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Well... from a biological view point, the 'human' anus is clearly
>meant as an exit for waste removal and not as an entrance of
>reproductive material.
no one cares. married couples have anal sex as well, you moron
>
>Which brings me back to my original statement. It is a bad choice to
>use an exit opening as an entrance for reproductive material, if for
>no other reason, it is a health issue.
and you, as a bigot who supported the 9/11 terrorists, think gays
should be killed
yes, we get it. you're a creationist
Earle Jones
<9f70f34c-d1b8-4f14...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
*
"Some particular bird"???
Here's a suggestion, you All-Seeing-Chiwawa:
Look up "cloaca".
Start with Wikipedia:
"In zoological anatomy, a cloaca is the posterior opening that serves
as the only such opening for the intestinal, reproductive and urinary
tracts of certain animal species. The word comes from Latin, and means
sewer. All birds, reptiles, and amphibians possess this orifice, from
which they excrete both urine and feces, unlike placental mammals, which
possess two separate orifices for evacuation."
No charge, Chiwawa, for the anatomy lesson.
earle
*
All-Seeing-I
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:40:21 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
>
> >Well... from a biological view point, the 'human' anus is clearly
> >meant as an exit for waste removal and not as an entrance of
> >reproductive material.
>
> no one cares. married couples have anal sex as well, you moron
>
>
>
> >Which brings me back to my original statement. It is a bad choice to
> >use an exit opening as an entrance for reproductive material, if for
> >no other reason, it is a health issue.
>
> and you, as a bigot who supported the 9/11 terrorists, think gays
> should be killed
I hope you realize that nym shifting is a bannable offence at Talk
Origins...
All-Seeing-I
> In article
> <9f70f34c-d1b8-4f14-b2ec-1fb9052ef...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you suggesting that this BIRD is evidence that the human Anus is
designed to receive reproductive material?
Bwa!! Hahahaha!!!
guscubed
> On 10 Nov, 19:48, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > > spintronic wrote:
>
> > [..]
>
> I'm glad you made this post, and I'm glad, my replying fucks up your
> attempt to delete your own post.
>
> > >> Evolution, would not produce any behaviour that
>
> > >> 1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
>
> > > Homosexuality doens't necessarily cause "populations depletion". As
> > > long as the rest of the population is reproducing, the population
> > > doesn't decline.
>
> > Not too mention the fact that many homosexuals *do* reproduce.
>
> > For example, many people get married and have children before they even
> > dare admit to themselves that they are gay (this happens more in
> > societies where homosexuality is looked down upon). Or if people are
> > already in a same sex relationship, they may get help of a friend of the
> > other sex.
>
> So then,
>
> A *Perfect* male. can produce kids, move on, and live a gay life.
>
> Question's:
>
Won't somebody think of the children!!?!!?!@#
</snip>
guscubed
Your original assertion was:
Which brings me back to my original statement. It is a bad choice to
use an exit opening as an entrance for reproductive material, if for
no other reason, it is a health issue.
When it was pointed out that the avian/reptile/marsupial cloaca is
exactly the same 'bad choice' you equivocate.
We understand Adman, you think anal sex is icky - that's your problem.
You probably think any kind of sex that differs from the missionary
position is icky too, that again, is your problem and need not concern
consenting adults who are free to do whatever they like with their own
bodies.
Build a bridge, and get over it.
fnord
guscubed
Do tell, AdMan.
chris thompson
> On 10 Nov, 18:43, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
> > dumber than your arguments about physics (not
> > heretofore thought possible).
>
> Ah, another fan?
No, not a fan. That breeze was the point whizzing over your head.
Chris
bpuharic
unless, of course, it's caused by geting a newsreader and signing up
to a newsgroup, apart from google....
John McKendry
> On Nov 10, 7:00 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip ASI's obsession with the naughtiness of anal sex>
>>
>> and you, as a bigot who supported the 9/11 terrorists, think gays
>> should be killed
>
> I hope you realize that nym shifting is a bannable offence at Talk
> Origins...
>
You're being jocular, right?
chris thompson
> That thread was rediculous.
>
> Your morals & logic are so 'out of wack', it's hard to know where to
> start.
>
> An animal has 3 desires,
You don't know a damned thing about animals, do you. Did you ever have
a pet? Didn't you ever watch a nature show on television? Even animals
we think of as being simple have many more complex desires than what
you describe. Have you ever seen a video of otters sliding down snow
banks into streams, then running back up to the top of the snow bank
and doing it all over again? Where in your simplistic view of ethology
is there room for play?
>
> 1) Eat,
> 2) Mate
> 3) Survive
>
> But animals are dumb.
Your envy is showing.
>
> So when you see a male binobo, trying to mount a male bonobo, you say;
>
> "A bonobo may be genetically programmed to be *GAY*.
No, I say, "There's a horny ape."
> Yet when I see a chiwawa trying to hump a toy puppet, I don't say;
Chiwawa? Sorry, that's one of your best yet.
>
> "A chiwawa is genetically programmed to be a *Synth-omania*.
>
> Your logic & morals are wacked, you call "black white", and "white
> black".
>
> Animals are stoopid, they hump anything that touches their widga.
Well some of them do. And some humans will do the same.
>
> But when a male humps a male, you go "TA DAR, proof, evolution
> produces gays.
Nope. We look for other evidence. We look and try to find some genetic
component to homosexuality in humans. The fact that **long-term**
homosexual relationships are present in other animals is a good clue
but not definitive.
>
> Evolution, would not produce any behaviour that
>
> 1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
Absolutely, totally, definitively, WRONG. There are many, many
examples of animals voluntarily refraining from breeding.
You of course put the emphasis on sex and that's wrong. The emphasis
should be on reproductive success. You can have reproductive success
in ways other than direct reproduction, you know. Sheesh, W.D.
Hamilton was writing about kin selection in the 1960s. Where have you
been?
In case you missed it, there are lots of species in which sexual
reproduction is inhibited, especially at young ages. These individuals
become helpers. They help raise their parents' next brood, or they
help raise their older siblings' brood. They scan for predators, they
bring food, they clean nests and help preen (all this is in birds;
there are other specific behaviors in, e.g., primates- where the
behavior is called "aunting" regardless of the sex of the helper).
Helpers at the nest have been known since AT LEAST 1975, when
Woolfenden published a now-classic paper in The Auk. Where have you
been?
> 2) Spreads & Causes disease.
By FAR, the most important route of HIV transmission worldwide is
heterosexual, vaginal sex.
You've been shown this before. Why do you keep spouting untruths?
Oh, because you're a creationist.
And how does ANY kind of sexual behavior CAUSE a disease? Are you
saying that if some guy poop-chutes his wife, that bacteria or viruses
magically poof into existence? This is one of the more stupid claims
you've made.
> 3) Turns grown men into strange creatures with squeaky voices, crooked
> posture that invites physical abuse.
No, that's anabolic steroids.
> 4) Make people self masacre their reproductive organs by having sex
> changes.
This is entirely unrelated to homosexuality. You can perhaps be
forgiven this ignorance, because you are obviously one of the huge
number of people who have not had the benefit of a comprehensive
sexuality education. I was one of those also, and I had many, many
misconceptions about transgendered and misgendered persons until my
wife started a Master's Program in Counseling. There are some people
who are genetically programmed to develop as males or females, but
who's entire psyches point them to the other sex. These people lead
tortured, painful lives, and the lucky few that achieve gender-change
surgery are not mutilated, they are made right. You should be a little
more understanding and tolerant towards people who suffer a psycho-
emotional-physical disorder. Those people suffer tremendously, and the
mutilation you mention very often happens before the gender-change
operation, not after, because of the self-loathing these folks
experience. Have a little sympathy, if you can manage it.
>
> You are the cause, (By you I mean society, parents, & peers)
Yes, indeed. Intolerance, usually based on religion, is a cause of
much unhappiness in the world. Certain religions embrace ignorance
about sexuality, instead relying on dogma and prejudice, and religion
has caused immense damage to society because of this intolerance.
Religion should quit trying to enforce medieval attitudes on modern
society when it comes to sex.
Chris
John Wilkins
<wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
And using your actual name, rather than a pseudonym one changes every
year or so when the absurdities muttered under the previous pseudonym
(trilobites are mammals, ha!) become too embarrassing to bear.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On 10 Nov, 20:36, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 7:49 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> .
> .
>
> > > Animals have 3 drives, one of the is to mate.
>
> > > Calling a male animal that humps a male animal "homosexual",
>
> > > Is as crazy as calling a dog who humps a table leg a carpenter!
>
> .
> .
>
> > What a simplistic world you live in.
>
> Yes, it's that simple.
>
> You call a male dog who humps a male dog gay,
> And yet a male dog who humps a tableleg is called a carpenter.
Well, the people who actually *study* animal social behaviour think
differently.
Why should anyone believe you rather than them, bearing in mind that
you know nothing of the subject and are dogmatically determined to
remain ignorant?
>
> > Just as well that scientists
> > don't think that questions can be solved thy throwing ignorance and
> > dogma at them.
>
> I agree.
>
> But you're no scientist, and anyone who disagrees with me isn't one
> either.
Actually, I am a scientist. So are the people who publish papers
describing homosexual behaviour in natural populations of animals.
Since when have you been the arbiter of who is and who is not a
scientist?
RF
John Wilkins
<3a0cbec5-ca93-4bee...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
<"richardal...@googlemail.com"> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 10:57�pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10 Nov, 20:36,
> > "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
...
> > But you're no scientist, and anyone who disagrees with me isn't one
> > either.
>
> Actually, I am a scientist. So are the people who publish papers
> describing homosexual behaviour in natural populations of animals.
>
> Since when have you been the arbiter of who is and who is not a
> scientist?
I love the fact that Richard was actually interviewed for BBC TV as a
scientist, a paleontologist, who specialises in plesiosaurs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8322000/8322629.stm
while spintronic probably didn't finish high school, but he thinks *he*
is able to assert who is and is not a scientist.
AusShane
> On 10 Nov, 19:48, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > > spintronic wrote:
>
> > [..]
>
> I'm glad you made this post, and I'm glad, my replying fucks up your
> attempt to delete your own post.
>
>
> > >> 1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
>
> > > long as the rest of the population is reproducing, the population
> > > doesn't decline.
>
> > Not too mention the fact that many homosexuals *do* reproduce.
>
> > For example, many people get married and have children before they even
> > dare admit to themselves that they are gay (this happens more in
> > societies where homosexuality is looked down upon). Or if people are
> > already in a same sex relationship, they may get help of a friend of the
> > other sex.
>
> So then,
>
> A *Perfect* male. can produce kids, move on, and live a gay life.
>
> Question's:
>
>
>
> 5) Who looks after the kids?
> 5b) Dad?
> 5c) Gayday's boyfriend?
> 5d) Mums rebound parent figure?
>
>
>
> 1) Kid is angry?
> 2) Kid is angry?
> 3) Kid is angry?
> 4) Kid is angry?
> 5) Kid is angry?
> 6) Kid is angry?
>
> Then what?
The concept of the nuclear family is purely a construct of recent
times, especially from the Victorian moral period.. In different
periods and in different cultures the parenting role models are much
less defined. Godparents were used when parents failed to survive
their children, it was not uncommon for children to have several sets
of parents as each particular plague ravaged through communities. In
many tribal communities parenting roles are intermingled with males
taking on the major part of a child's education and during certain
periods and celebrations the genders are kept strictly apart. In
feudal Japan homosexuality was regarded as just another part of the
same spectrum of relationships. Its only in the last 150 years or so
that we have narrowed our view of morality, much of it coming from the
strict repression and segregation of Victorian society.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> In article
> <3a0cbec5-ca93-4bee-8dad-1cf37935d...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
I was even mentioned by name (and by the delectable Kirsty Young) on
"Have I Got News for You"! * Who cares about how many papers I've
published. That's *real* scientific credentials.
RF
*For those unfamiliar with British TV, it's a popular, long-running
and highly irreverent and amusing news quiz** on the BBC.
**and they misquoted me. I can't hold a skull weighing the better part
of a quarter of a ton in my hands, and I didn't drop it.
All-seeing-I
I suppose someone forgot to inform the "Victorian" chimps of this.
[cut nonsense]
All-seeing-I
> In article <s79kf59rj6md3tmusag73rr23o6d37c...@4ax.com>, bpuharic
Well, as Kirk would say: that is the trouble with tribble-ites
:P
richardal...@googlemail.com
My word! Chimps live in nuclear families, do they?
That will come as a great surprise to the primatologists who study
chimp behaviour.
"The Common Chimpanzee lives in a fission-fusion society, where mating
is promiscuous, and may be found in groups of the following types: all-
male, adult females and offspring, consisting of both sexes, one
female and her offspring, or a single individual."
Doesn't sound very "Victorian" to me.
Or do you know more about the subject than the people who have
actually *studied* it?
RF
AusShane
> > Question's:
> > what happens next?
> > Then what?
[cut nonsense]
The reply was to the standard white western european anglo saxon red
blooded gun totin rootin tootin jeezus meant us to have a mommee and a
daddeee narrow viewpoint culture reply. The nuclear family concept has
only existed for 100 years or so. I would have thought that with your
slavish obsession to ancient civilisations you might have understood a
little about different community structures over the centuries.
Perhaps if you actually went to school and learnt a few archaic
languages, did the archaeology and read the texts in the original you
might be able to speak with some shred of credulity.
All-seeing-I
What makes YOUR brand of human better then the gun totin rootin tootin
jeezus meant us to have a mommee and a daddeee type of human?
In all honesty. Your brand seems rather arrogant. ILL Informed about
much.
Reddfrogg
> On 10 Nov, 23:24, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:> spintronic wrote:
>
> .
> .
>
> > > I'm glad you made this post, and I'm glad, my replying fucks up your
> > > attempt to delete your own post.
>
> > Who, other than Ray attempts to delete their own posts?
>
> Shhh, perhaps you have an nmp spy among you.
Ah, so you also mistake requesting that one's posts not be archived
with deleting them afterward.
>
> > > So then,
>
> > > A *Perfect* male. can produce kids, move on, and live a gay life.
>
> > Why do you assume such is a 'perfect male'?
>
> I don't, but someone upthread said they were fitter. (My Guess: he's
> gayness clouds his judgement
I didn't see anyone "up thread" claim that homosexuals were
"fitter". The point was that homosexuals can, and do breed.
>
> > Having fantasies again, Spinny?
>
> Of course, I wish I ran 15-miles a day instead of 4, then I'd be
> *YOUR* "Perfect male*.
As I mentioned before, males don't interest me in that way, but don't
let me stop you from having your fantasies.
>
> > Nmp's point, as I understand it is that some homosexuals do
> > reproduce, so that the genetic component for homosexuality is not lost
> > through lack of reproduction.
>
> As I understand it, T21 patients reproduce too.
So?
>
> Should we give them a gold star?
If you feel so inclined. The point was not whether anyone should,
or should not reproduce, but can one. You seem to indicate that
homosexuals cannot ever reproduce, which is, as shown, wrong.
>
> > > Question's:
>
> > > 1) What about the kids?
>
> > What about them?
>
> Obviously I cant respond (personally) to you without your profile.
Why respond "personally"? We are discussing in a public forum.
>
> My guess.
>
> 1) Kid goes to school. Everyone has male/female parents, but this kid
> has male/male, or female/female.
>
> Result: Abuse.
You might want to draw your head out of...the sand, shall we say....
and look at reality. In schools today, most kids have some
combination of single parent, step parent, or other adult acting as
parent. Having two same sex parents is not likely to result in abuse
at school.
Also, it should be noted the same "argument" was often made in
opposition to inter-racial marriages. Bigotry apparently has a
limited imagination.
>
> Personal info ( I had to wear the same cloth's 5 days a week, Abuse
> hurts)
Presumably, you had parents of different genders, yet you still
endured abuse. The point is that children tend to be cruel, and will
pick on anyone, for anything. Homosexual parents isn't going to be
any different than being picked on for being short, having a strange
accent, or wearing the same "cloths" for 5 days a week.
>
> 2) Children are *biologically* wired to love 2 parents.
Citation please, and can you please cite any studies showing that the
two parents can't be of the same sex?
>
> Result:, (Who are my parent's)
Answer, the two that raise you. Do you think it really matters what
gender those are?
>
> 3) Female/female parents, will teach their daughters to be lesbian.
As you have pointed out, homosexuality is at least partly genetic.
One doesn't "teach" one's children to be homosexual. There's no
evidence that suggests that having anyone can be "taught" their sexual
orientation.
>
> Result, (Lesbian/lesbian, relationships, 0 progeny)
How is that different from straight couples who choose not to have
children?
>
> 4) Male/male parents, will teach their sons to be gay.
>
> Result, (Gay/gay relationships, 0 progeny)
Same as above. Homosexuality is not something that is "taught".
It's at least partially inborn.
>
> 5) Gay is pervert.
That's your own bigotry talking.
>
> Result: Abuse kids.
The vast majority of child abusers, and molesters are straight.
There's nothing that suggests that homosexuals are more likely to
abuse their children.
>
> 6) Lesbian is pervert.
>
> Result: Abuse kids.
Same as above.
>
> Now, from 1 - 6. I don't see a healthy result.
That's because you are ignorant, and a bigot.
>
> But then again, smokers, don't give a shit about asthma sufferers.
>
Nor do you seem to care about other human beings.
> > > 3) What about the kids?
>
> > What about them?
>
> > Children of homosexual males and of homosexual females don't normally suffer
> > any developmental or physical difficulties
>
> Fuck off. And you know this how?
From reading the data:
American Academy of Pediatrics. Policy Statement. Coparent or Second-
Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents, Pediatrics February 2002, 109. 3:
339-340.
>
> This practice wass made legal in the last 20 years.
>
> Great scientist, to make a study on that data.
Can't keep those scientist down, can you...
>
> Tell me, have you applied your data to the general populus?
Why would it need to be applied to the "general populus"[sic]? We
are discussing a particular portion of the population.
>
> ANSWER: NO!
I see, you seem to get your answers by making them up.
>
> > > 4) Are you saying this is healthy?
>
> > Homosexual behavior is not more unhealthy for the individual than
> > heterosexual behavior, as long as one uses protection.
>
> Hang on, are you saying *ANIMALS* use protection?
Humans are animals, so in this instance, yes. Animals other than
humans don't use protection, and they suffer from diseases from both
types of sexual contact. As far as individual health goes, it's
just as dangerous to engage in either type of sex.
>
> Wow, we have a genius in our circle.
Alas, it's not you.
>
> > Much more venerial diseases are spread by heterosexual behavior than are spread by homosexual
> > behavior.
>
> I doubt it, but I'm glad you brought it up.
>
> The bible 2000+ years ago said as much.
Chapter and verse, please.
>
> (Now don't be silly and ask for scripture. You know the bible has
> them, and you'll look silly in a day or so)
I'll take my chances. Besides you look silly now. Why should you get
all the fun?
>
> > > 4a) for whom?
>
> > Exactly my point. Sex is a risky business for anyone, but if one
> > practices precautions, it can be much safer.
>
> Tell that to the bonobos.
Get them on line, and I'll tell them.
> > > 5) Who looks after the kids?
>
> > The parents. Who else?
>
> And you wonder why peoples morals are screwed?
yes, I wonder how your morals got so screwed up. Do you have any
answer for that?
DJT
Walter Bushell
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> Homosexuality doens't necessarily cause "populations depletion". As long
> as the rest of the population is reproducing, the population doesn't
> decline.
In fact, most homosexuals reproduce. In many societies, including that
in the US up to very recently, you got married and had children because
that was expected of you. A man needs a very small percentage of
ejaculations to provide his duty to society. The rest, well every town
used to have a cat house and we find a lot of married men caught having
sex in restrooms even today.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Burkhard
Or indeed
James G. Pawelski et all: , The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and
Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children
PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 1 July 2006, pp. 349-364
"Recent publications from 2 population-based samples lend additional
strength to earlier evidence demonstrating that children's well-being
is not threatened as a result of growing up with lesbian parents"
The study _compares_ children form same sex couples with those form
the general population, taking care of one of Spin's "objections"
And furthermore:
"The gender identity of preadolescent children raised by lesbian
mothers has been found consistently to be in line with their
biological gender. None of >500 children studied have shown evidence
of gender-identity confusion, wished to be the other gender, or
consistently engaged in cross-gender behavior. No differences have
been found in the toy, game, activity, dress, or friendship
preferences of boys or girls who had lesbian mothers, compared with
those who had heterosexual mothers."
taking care of his particularly stupid idea that children from
homosexuals also become necessarily gay - in which case we would all
be gay by now anyway. See also Bailey JM, Bobrow D, Wolfe M, Mikach S.
Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. Dev Psychol. 1995;31 :
124 –129 - the percentage of gay offspring of gay fathers was just as
expected and not higher than that of heterosexual fathers.
and finally;
"In general, children whose parents are gay or lesbian have been found
to have normal relationships with childhood peers and to maintain
social relationships appropriate for their developmental levels."
taking care of the abuse claim that he pulled out of his backside.
See also with the same results
Wainright J, Russell S, Patterson C. Psychosocial adjustment, school
outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex
parents. Child Dev. 2004;75 :1886
Golombok S, Perry B, Burston A, et al. Children with lesbian parents:
a community study. Dev Psychol. 2003;39 :20 –33
Stacey J, Biblarz TJ. (How) does the sexual orientation of parents
matter? Am Sociol Rev. 2001;66 :159 –183
Not that I woudl have any hope that something as mundane as scientific
studies and objective evidence would penetrate the mindset of the
committed bigot
Kermit
For one thing, they're educated.
>
> In all honesty. Your brand seems rather arrogant. ILL Informed about
> much.
Which languages have you studied, which subjects have you studied,
what original research have you done? You are unwilling to do the
work, whether through laziness, fear, or some other motive, I don't
know. Your disdain for discipline and reality is crippling your mind.
Start to learn the subjects you think you know and you will be ashamed
when you realize how ignorant you are. Not because you are ignorant -
we all are, to varying degrees - but by the arrogance you displayed
here in T.O.
Hell, half a century later I'm still embarrassed when I think of the
arrogance I sometimes displayed as a kid.
You think of the musings you post about here as original work, I'm
sure, but what we see is a kid in his playhouse, repeating some
phrases he heard in the cartoons, and firing his cap gun at grownups
walking by on the sidewalk. It's alright if you just want to dabble,
nobody does *everything petal to the metal, full bore. But most people
have a sense of proportion and know when they're amateurs.
Kermit
Ye Old One
Pot, kettle and total blackness.
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
Breezes aren't point's.
Desertphile
> A *Perfect* male. can produce kids, move on, and live a gay life.
Males can produce children these days?
I wish I had a gay life.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
spintronic
> On Nov 10, 12:36 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
> > An animal has 3 desires,
>
> You don't know a damned thing about animals, do you. Did you ever have
> a pet?
No.
> Didn't you ever watch a nature show on television?
No.
> Even animals we think of as being simple have many more complex desires than what
> you describe.
Such as?
> Have you ever seen a video of otters sliding down snow
> banks into streams, then running back up to the top of the snow bank
> and doing it all over again?
No.
> Where in your simplistic view of ethology is there room for play?
I said;
"animals have 3 desires".
I could also say;
"There are 3 prime colours".
Now, in reply to you'r rather STOOPID question. "Where in your
simplistic view of ethology is there room for play?"
I will ask, "Where in the simplistic view of prime colours is there
room for purple"?
None of this, has any bearing on the "evolution of gayness" / or the
"non-existance thereof".
> > 1) Eat,
> > 2) Mate
> > 3) Survive
>
> > But animals are dumb.
>
> Your envy is showing.
I wish I were, then I wouldn't comprehend the gibberish of retards
like yourself.
> > So when you see a male binobo, trying to mount a male bonobo, you say;
>
> > "A bonobo may be genetically programmed to be *GAY*.
>
> No, I say, "There's a horny ape."
So do I.
I wonder why some say; "gayness is a selected evolutionary trait?"
Curious, Just curious,.
(OR is that your COMMON SENCE unwhittingly shining through?)
> > Yet when I see a chiwawa trying to hump a toy puppet, I don't say;
>
> Chiwawa? Sorry, that's one of your best yet.
Why? because I don't giva a shit about how to spell a stupid dogs
name?
I suggest you get drugs for your obsessive behaviour disorder.
> > "A chiwawa is genetically programmed to be a *Synth-omania*.
>
> > Your logic & morals are wacked, you call "black white", and "white
> > black".
>
> > Animals are stoopid, they hump anything that touches their widga.
>
> Well some of them do. And some humans will do the same.
So stop making out there is a "gay gene", a "gay-disposition".
IT'S ALL BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!
> > But when a male humps a male, you go "TA DAR, proof, evolution
> > produces gays.
>
> Nope.
Oh ya, evolutionists do.
You may not. But that's because you'r too dumb to recognise the
argument, or even notice there is one.
> We look for other evidence. We look and try to find some genetic
> component to homosexuality in humans.
So how's that going for you?
You found anything yet?
Thought not!
> The fact that **long-term** homosexual relationships are present in other animals is a good clue
> but not definitive.
***LONG TERM****?
You mean, there are no females for ***LONG PERIODS***?
> > Evolution, would not produce any behaviour that
>
> > 1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
>
> Absolutely, totally, definitively, WRONG. There are many, many
> examples of animals voluntarily refraining from breeding.
Example & reason?
> You of course put the emphasis on sex and that's wrong.
No, you put the emphasis on *procreation*, which involves sex, so
*YOU'R* wrong.
> The emphasis should be on reproductive success.
And 2 guys shagging have, exactly how much "reproductive success"
again?
Oh ya, that's right.
Big fat 0.
> You can have reproductive success in ways other than direct reproduction,
> you know. Sheesh, W.D. Hamilton was writing about kin selection in the 1960s.
> Where have you been?
Right here. Kin selection is BS. When it comes to gays.
Only in the last 5 - 10 years have gays been given the power of
adoption.
And like I said b4. 2 gays bringing up a male will perpetuate a male
gay.
> In case you missed it, there are lots of species in which sexual
> reproduction is inhibited, especially at young ages.
Hang on. QUIT THE BULL SHIT.
You are using a DOUBLE BLUFF, and sadly, I don't fall for them.
*ALL* humans are *sexually inhibited* at young ages.
But you are making out that;
"part inhibition - part active";
equates to
"gay 100% inactive".
STOP THE BULL SHIT. IT DOESN'T WORK ON ME!
> These individuals become helpers.
B.S. all we have proven so far, is that horny animals shag anything
that moves.
If it happens to be a male that moves, you can work out the diff.
Let me ask you a question?
WHY IS THERE A **SIGNIFICANT** INCREASE IN HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOUR IN
MALE PRISONS?
> They help raise their parents' next brood,
Do they fuck, more like they molest them, and fuck their minds up.
> They scan for predators,
They are the predators.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 10, 7:00 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:40:21 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Well... from a biological view point, the 'human' anus is clearly
>> >meant as an exit for waste removal and not as an entrance of
>> >reproductive material.
>>
>> no one cares. married couples have anal sex as well, you moron
>>
>>
>>
>> >Which brings me back to my original statement. It is a bad choice to
>> >use an exit opening as an entrance for reproductive material, if for
>> >no other reason, it is a health issue.
>>
>> and you, as a bigot who supported the 9/11 terrorists, think gays
>> should be killed
>
>I hope you realize that nym shifting is a bannable offence at Talk
>Origins...
no, it's not.
so did you applaud the ft hood terrorist, too?
>
spintronic
> On Nov 11, 4:30 am, AusShane <quar...@live.com> wrote:
.
> I wish I had a gay life.
Y.O.O is pretty desperate too. I'm sure if you ask him nicely......
heekster
>On Nov 10, 11:36�am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> That thread was rediculous.
>>
>> Your morals & logic are so 'out of wack', it's hard to know where to
>> start.
>>
>> An animal has 3 desires,
>>
>> 1) Eat,
>> 2) Mate
>> 3) Survive
>>
>> But animals are dumb.
>>
>> So when you see a male binobo, trying to mount a male bonobo, you say;
>>
>> "A bonobo may be genetically programmed to be *GAY*.
>>
>> Yet when I see a chiwawa trying to hump a toy puppet, I don't say;
>>
>> �"A chiwawa is genetically programmed to be a *Synth-omania*.
>>
>> Your logic & morals are wacked, you call "black white", and "white
>> black".
>>
>> Animals are stoopid, they hump anything that touches their widga.
>>
>> But when a male humps a male, you go "TA DAR, proof, evolution
>> produces gays.
>>
>> Evolution, would not produce any behaviour that
>>
>> 1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
>> 2) Spreads �& Causes disease.
>> 3) Turns grown men into strange creatures with squeaky voices, crooked
>> posture that invites physical abuse.
>> 4) Make people self masacre their reproductive organs by having sex
>> changes.
>>
>> You are the cause, (By you I mean society, parents, & peers)
>
>
>
>Well... from a biological view point, the 'human' anus is clearly
>meant as an exit for waste removal and not as an entrance of
>reproductive material.
>
Yet your head is reposited in yours.
Why is that?
>Some offer a lame analogy that a particular bird has an anus with both
>functions.
Your credentials with respect to being lame, are absolutely
impeccable.
>Which is nothing short of grabbing at straws. Because birds
>are not human.
No shit, iron horse.
>And even if there was a single species of bird that
>used the anus for a duel purpose, that is hardly evidence for the anus
>in humans to have a duel purpose.
>
>A small percentage of homosexual behavior can be seen in nature.
Really? This means that the major percentage is supernatural?
> But
>the percent in nature is sometimes a show of dominance. Which cuts
>that small percent even lower. Compare that to a larger percentage of
>the human population that is gay and it is not difficult to
>understand that the majority of human homosexuality is by choice.
>
This is idiotic, and makes no sense whatsoever.
>Which brings me back to my original statement. It is a bad choice to
>use an exit opening as an entrance for reproductive material, if for
>no other reason, it is a health issue.
Which brings you back to why you keep your head up yours.
heekster
heekster
wrote:
Just a garden variety adman imbecility.
He may claim later to have intended it as jocular, but it will take
him several weeks to figure it all out.
chris thompson
> On 11 Nov, 03:15, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 10, 12:36 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> .
> .
>
> > > An animal has 3 desires,
>
> > You don't know a damned thing about animals, do you. Did you ever have
> > a pet?
>
> No.
Self-acknowledged ignorance No. 1.
>
> > Didn't you ever watch a nature show on television?
>
> No.
Self-acknowledged ignorance No.2.
Nothing wrong with ignorance, you know. But basing positions on
ignorance- especially self-acknowledged ignorance- is wrong.
>
> > Even animals we think of as being simple have many more complex desires than what
> > you describe.
>
> Such as?
See below.
>
> > Have you ever seen a video of otters sliding down snow
> > banks into streams, then running back up to the top of the snow bank
> > and doing it all over again?
>
> No.
Self-acknowledged ignorance No. 3.
> > Where in your simplistic view of ethology is there room for play?
>
> I said;
>
> "animals have 3 desires".
>
> I could also say;
>
> "There are 3 prime colours".
>
> Now, in reply to you'r rather STOOPID question. "Where in your
> simplistic view of ethology is there room for play?"
>
> I will ask, "Where in the simplistic view of prime colours is there
> room for purple"?
>
> None of this, has any bearing on the "evolution of gayness" / or the
> "non-existance thereof".
The point- the point you seem unwilling or unable to acknowledge- is
that animals do things that are not encompassed in your stupid 3
motivations. Animals have other motivations besides the 3 you allow
them, and a cursory examination of animal behavior reveals that.
Anyone who's owned a dog that licks his face when he gets home from
work knows that not everything an animal does is governed by eat,
mate, survive.
I am sorry you've never had that simple, joyful experience of pure
love, but honestly, I think it's better that way, because if you owned
a dog, the poor animal would probably suffer terribly.
>
> > > 1) Eat,
> > > 2) Mate
> > > 3) Survive
>
> > > But animals are dumb.
>
> > Your envy is showing.
>
> I wish I were, then I wouldn't comprehend the gibberish of retards
> like yourself.
>
> > > So when you see a male binobo, trying to mount a male bonobo, you say;
>
> > > "A bonobo may be genetically programmed to be *GAY*.
>
> > No, I say, "There's a horny ape."
>
> So do I.
>
> I wonder why some say; "gayness is a selected evolutionary trait?"
No one said that. Some people say that homosexuality, like many
behaviors, is influenced by genetic factors. It's only people who have
a need for simplistic solutions and sound bites that reduce it the way
you do. Sexual behavior in humans is extraordinarily complex and
trying to reduce it the way you do is, in a word, stupid.
>
> Curious, Just curious,.
>
> (OR is that your COMMON SENCE unwhittingly shining through?)
>
> > > Yet when I see a chiwawa trying to hump a toy puppet, I don't say;
>
> > Chiwawa? Sorry, that's one of your best yet.
>
> Why? because I don't giva a shit about how to spell a stupid dogs
> name?
Taking a moment to learn how to spell a word is the mark of someone
who cares about their position. Not taking that moment is the mark of
an idiot.
>
> I suggest you get drugs for your obsessive behaviour disorder.
I realize you think drugs are the solution to everything, but I
disagree. You should stop the recreational pharmacy thingie.
>
> > > "A chiwawa is genetically programmed to be a *Synth-omania*.
>
> > > Your logic & morals are wacked, you call "black white", and "white
> > > black".
Your mistake is that you impose morality on sexuality. That is the
mark of the religious fanatic. Get out of other peoples' private
lives.
>
> > > Animals are stoopid, they hump anything that touches their widga.
>
> > Well some of them do. And some humans will do the same.
>
> So stop making out there is a "gay gene", a "gay-disposition".
Hyper-sexuality is not the same as homosexuality. You are projecting.
Or maybe, you just need to get laid.
>
> IT'S ALL BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!
Yes, your position is BS.
>
> > > But when a male humps a male, you go "TA DAR, proof, evolution
> > > produces gays.
>
> > Nope.
>
> Oh ya, evolutionists do.
>
> You may not. But that's because you'r too dumb to recognise the
> argument, or even notice there is one.
You are descending into incoherence. You don't even know who's
agreeing with you or why. You cannot comprehend the simplest point
that is not totally congruent with your own. You need to lay off
whatever drugs you are on.
>
> > We look for other evidence. We look and try to find some genetic
> > component to homosexuality in humans.
>
> So how's that going for you?
>
> You found anything yet?
Well, yes, we have.
>
> Thought not!
>
> > The fact that **long-term** homosexual relationships are present in other animals is
a good clue
> > but not definitive.
>
> ***LONG TERM****?
>
> You mean, there are no females for ***LONG PERIODS***?
No. It was intuitively plain to the most casual of readers, but I
guess you need more explanation. Some animals retain long-term
homosexual relationships in the presence of conspecifics of the
opposite sex.
That means they love their partner. It's that simple.
Since you seem incapable of love, it might not be within your grasp to
understand that.
But some people fall in love with individuals of the same sex.
You should be so lucky.
>
> > > Evolution, would not produce any behaviour that
>
> > > 1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
>
> > Absolutely, totally, definitively, WRONG. There are many, many
> > examples of animals voluntarily refraining from breeding.
>
> Example & reason?
Shown below. Or did you dishonestly snip my mention of Woolfenden's
classic 1975 paper on helpers at the nest? Yes, you did.
>
> > You of course put the emphasis on sex and that's wrong.
>
> No, you put the emphasis on *procreation*, which involves sex, so
> *YOU'R* wrong.
No, I put the emphasis on reproductive success. If I have a kid, on
average, the same percentage of my genes get passed on as if I had 2
nephews or nieces. I know that's a tough one for you to follow given
your "waiter keeps the 2 dollars" puzzle but there it is.
>
> > The emphasis should be on reproductive success.
>
> And 2 guys shagging have, exactly how much "reproductive success"
> again?
>
> Oh ya, that's right.
>
> Big fat 0.
Wow. You have succeeded in partaking of aggressive ignorance, haven't
you?
>
> > You can have reproductive success in ways other than direct reproduction,
> > you know. Sheesh, W.D. Hamilton was writing about kin selection in the 1960s.
> > Where have you been?
>
> Right here. Kin selection is BS. When it comes to gays.
Um, wrongo.
>
> Only in the last 5 - 10 years have gays been given the power of
> adoption.
Doggone you are stupid. Adoption actually runs counter to kin
selection. When a person- homosexual or heterosexual- adopts, it is
beneficial to the biological parent of the child. Now arguments can be
made about the cultural evolution inherent in the situation but that's
way too complicated for you.
But a homosexual can increase his/her reproductive success by
assisting his sibs in raising their kids.
>
> And like I said b4. 2 gays bringing up a male will perpetuate a male
> gay.
You are so damned stupid. The vast majority of homosexuals are raised
in heterosexual households.
>
> > In case you missed it, there are lots of species in which sexual
> > reproduction is inhibited, especially at young ages.
>
> Hang on. QUIT THE BULL SHIT.
>
> You are using a DOUBLE BLUFF, and sadly, I don't fall for them.
>
> *ALL* humans are *sexually inhibited* at young ages.
HUMANS are not sexually mature at those ages.
The animal examples I provided are of individuals who are SEXUALLY
MATURE yet VOLUNTARILY REFRAIN FROM BREEDING.
>
> But you are making out that;
>
> "part inhibition - part active";
>
> equates to
>
> "gay 100% inactive".
>
> STOP THE BULL SHIT. IT DOESN'T WORK ON ME!
That was incoherent.
>
> > These individuals become helpers.
>
> B.S. all we have proven so far, is that horny animals shag anything
> that moves.
Just because you are in denial, does not mean that people reading this
do not understand you are utterly wrong.
>
> If it happens to be a male that moves, you can work out the diff.
>
> Let me ask you a question?
>
> WHY IS THERE A **SIGNIFICANT** INCREASE IN HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOUR IN
> MALE PRISONS?
There's an increase in homosexual behavior in both male and female
prisons.
Do you think it has something to do with lack of access to members of
the opposite sex?
>
> > They help raise their parents' next brood,
>
> Do they fuck, more like they molest them, and fuck their minds up.
You are pretty twisted, you know that?
>
> > They scan for predators,
>
> They are the predators.
Were you molested? I am sorry- but I didn't do it.
Chris
spintronic
> On Nov 11, 6:22 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
.
> > > > An animal has 3 desires,
>
> > > You don't know a damned thing about animals, do you. Did you ever have
> > > a pet?
>
> > No.
>
> Self-acknowledged ignorance No. 1.
>
> > > Didn't you ever watch a nature show on television?
>
> > No.
>
> Self-acknowledged ignorance No.2.
>
> Nothing wrong with ignorance, you know.
Well, you're the teacher, I'm the student.
chris thompson
So, no response to anything substantive?
Thank you for conceding on all points.
Chris
Walter Bushell
<8343ef9a-4f03-40c5...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 1) Causes population depletion, by inhibiting sexual reproduction.
>
> Like the Catholic Church...
Actually prohibitions of sex probably increases sexual activity. Priests
probably father as many children as the laity. Certainly this has been
true for most of the time of the church and may not be so true today
because the clergy attracts gays disproportionally.
John Wilkins
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 4:30�am, AusShane <quar...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > A *Perfect* male. can produce kids, move on, and live a gay life.
>
> Males can produce children these days?
>
> I wish I had a gay life.
I'm male and I produced children twice (that I know of).
John Wilkins
<heek...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
I would have said "Farts at Dawn" category
Ye Old One
** SHUNNED for forging, abject stupidity, constant lying and trolling.
**
--
Bob.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by heekster <heek...@ifiwxtc.net>:
Great; now I have a mental image of "back away ten paces,
turn, bend over and fire"...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Mitchell Coffey
> In article <cngmf5dgr91q6nmmv1sfnmo54drsddh...@4ax.com>, Desertphile
>
> <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 4:30 am, AusShane <quar...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > A *Perfect* male. can produce kids, move on, and live a gay life.
>
> > Males can produce children these days?
>
> > I wish I had a gay life.
>
> I'm male and I produced children twice (that I know of).
What a peculiar thing to say! What reasons have you to doubt they're
your children?
Mitchell
Mitchell Coffey
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:> > <3a0cbec5-ca93-4bee-8dad-1cf37935d...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > <"richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"> wrote:
> > > On Nov 10, 10:57 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 10 Nov, 20:36,
> > > > "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > ...
> > > > But you're no scientist, and anyone who disagrees with me isn't one
> > > > either.
>
> > > Actually, I am a scientist. So are the people who publish papers
> > > describing homosexual behaviour in natural populations of animals.
>
> > > Since when have you been the arbiter of who is and who is not a
> > > scientist?
>
> > I love the fact that Richard was actually interviewed for BBC TV as a
> > scientist, a paleontologist, who specialises in plesiosaurs:
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8322000/8322629.stm
>
> > while spintronic probably didn't finish high school, but he thinks *he*
> > is able to assert who is and is not a scientist.
>
> I was even mentioned by name (and by the delectable Kirsty Young) on
> "Have I Got News for You"! * Who cares about how many papers I've
> published. That's *real* scientific credentials.
>
> RF
>
> *For those unfamiliar with British TV, it's a popular, long-running
> and highly irreverent and amusing news quiz** on the BBC.
>
> **and they misquoted me. I can't hold a skull weighing the better part
> of a quarter of a ton in my hands, and I didn't drop it.
Back in the '70s held a door open for Jane Fonda. Of course, this
reflected nothing upon my professional competence.
Oh, and congratulations on the plesiosaur thing.
Mitchell Coffey
John Wilkins
<b4dec3f1-3e6f-4ec8...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
Only their mother knows for sure.
heekster
wrote:
Borborygmic projection?
:)
Sapient Fridge
<f7e295c4-37b6-4bc9...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Nov 11, 3:41�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> In all honesty. Your brand seems rather arrogant. ILL Informed about
>> much.
>
>Which languages have you studied, which subjects have you studied,
>what original research have you done? You are unwilling to do the
>work, whether through laziness, fear, or some other motive, I don't
>know. Your disdain for discipline and reality is crippling your mind.
>Start to learn the subjects you think you know and you will be ashamed
>when you realize how ignorant you are.
My offer to buy Adman a brand new copy of Neil Shubin's "Your inner
fish" and ship it to any name/address he wants is still open. As long
as he promises to read it.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Walter Bushell
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:35:15 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by heekster <heek...@ifiwxtc.net>:
>
> >In the "Dueling Anuses" category,
> >
> >> And even if there was a single species of bird that
> >>used the anus for a duel purpose, that is hardly evidence for the anus
> >>in humans to have a duel purpose.
>
> Great; now I have a mental image of "back away ten paces,
> turn, bend over and fire"...
I there were lighters involved we would have another way to see whose
Swartz was bigger.
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Poor Dawn.