- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Guess what "the dude" I'm not preventing anyone from doing anything - I'm merely judging your shallowness as an individual, and how you believe certain ideas to bully someone outweigh others..
And don't even pretend you don't because EVERY PROGRESSIVE thinks the same and adheres to the same ideas....You're no more unique than Janeane Garofalo, Lady Gaga or et al...
Yet you act like gays are being assaulted and ridiculed at an epidemic rate..
Give me examples...
Gays are picked on no more than fat people or short people, or even overly intelligent people.
Why the **** aren't you defending them? oh yeah because they're not listed in your progressive playbook.
Start here…
The thing to understand is that natural selection tends to weed out traits that are not conducive to the continued existence of a species. But it's not a perfect or complete process. If it were, then there would be no solid black peppered Moths, nor would there be any human homosexuals (assuming a purely-genetic cause for homosexuality).
Also, due to the diploid nature of animal cells (including human) deleterious traits are more able to persist than they would in a strictly haploid form of life.
Was it ever a felony to be fat?
Yeah, remember that time a kid was tied to a fence post and pistol-whipped to death because he was fat? Me either.
There are numerous cases where kids have been bullied and beaten because of their physical appearance where sexual orientation had nothing to do with it.
To claim that this whole thing about confession of being gay is the result of abuse is not warranted.
If you are gay and it is normal for you then there shouldn't be the need to make a confession period.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed. In your Peppered Moth example, it was the ones who did not adapt to the changed environment which died out, thus ensuring that those who DID mutate passed on the mutation to their children. That is Genetics 101.Start here…
The thing to understand is that natural selection tends to weed out traits that are not conducive to the continued existence of a species. But it's not a perfect or complete process. If it were, then there would be no solid black peppered Moths, nor would there be any human homosexuals (assuming a purely-genetic cause for homosexuality).
Also, due to the diploid nature of animal cells (including human) deleterious traits are more able to persist than they would in a strictly haploid form of life.
These comparisons you are making are absolutely ridiculous. Are fat peopled prevented in most states from marrying each other? Was it ever a felony to be fat? Hell fat people are in the majority anymore. Moreover, someone that is obese can lose weight, someone that is gay cannot change their sexual preference.
People are defined by who they are and what they do. For example, I am married, white, straight, a father, an avid runner / cyclist, form the South originally and so on. Its quite easy to state I am these things because by and large society has been pretty easy on white straight guys. That is not all that defines me, but it is part of what does. Similarly, someone that is gay might be an avid runner, they may be from the South, in some cases they may be a father, they might be white, in a few states they might be married, but they are also gay and there is nothing wrong with that, it is just another aspect of their lives that defines them. Telling their friends and family that they are gay does not mean they are trying to be divisive, but rather that they are just revealing something about themselves. There is nothing liberal about that, and only a bigot would see anything wrong with that.
Finally, it does take some courage on their part to come out because unfortunately there are still a lot of religious and social conservatives that are not too keen on people being gay.
Homosexuality isn't necessarily a "deleterious trait." I can think of a perfectly good evolutionary reason for homosexuality to exist. Population control.
Population control is not a feature of natural selection. The reason why gays and lesbians were not weeded out by natural selection is that gays and lesbians are perfectly capable of mating with the opposite sex, indeed did so throughout human history, and survival until producing and raising the next generation is ultimately all natural selection is concerned with.
Homosexuality isn't necessarily a "deleterious trait." I can think of a perfectly good evolutionary reason for homosexuality to exist. Population control.
No, genius, because they're not what the thread is about. I'm against bullying of all sorts. You're the one trying to change the subject.
Also, there's not people trying to prevent fat people from getting married, or trying to keep it legal to fire someone for being too smart. Sorry, but in some ways gay people do have it worse.
Matthew Shepard.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed. In your Peppered Moth example, it was the ones who did not adapt to the changed environment which died out, thus ensuring that those who DID mutate passed on the mutation to their children. That is Genetics 101.
However, in the case of homosexuality, the same does not apply. Given that every single homosexual on the planet was born from a heterosexual union, their sexual orientation was passed to them (again, assuming a genetic cause for homosexuality) predominantly from those who do not share their sexual orientation. If anything, and again this all assumes a genetic cause for homosexuality, you are looking at a recessive trait for homosexuality. Since recessive traits can be passed from generation to generation without asserting themselves, and since sexual orientation is not a factor which contributes to longevity as an individual or a person's ability (ability, mind you, not desire) to reproduce, your argument fails.
Fair enough, you know more about that **** than I do. I was more speaking of why the trait may have existed in the first place. It's a theory, and not one I intend to spend a lot of time arguing for.
And you know this for a fact, how? Were you in the room with them? Or, as I suspect, is this just your own personal opinion masquerading as fact?
Sexual orientation absolutely is a factor when it comes to reproduction.
Homosexuals can reproduce, but in order to do so, they have to go against their nature, and participate in heterosexual matings. This certainly makes them significantly less likely to reproduce, and to pass their traits on to future generations, than heterosexuals who, can reproduce without taking extraordinary means to violate their nature.
Yes, that is true that homosexuals do not reproduce at nearly the rate of heterosexuals. But, that is immaterial, as it completely ignores the fact that A) there is not enough evidence yet to conclude that homosexuality is genetic and B) even if it were, that it is a dominant trait and not recessive.Sexual orientation absolutely is a factor when it comes to reproduction.
Homosexuals can reproduce, but in order to do so, they have to go against their nature, and participate in heterosexual matings. This certainly makes them significantly less likely to reproduce, and to pass their traits on to future generations, than heterosexuals who, can reproduce without taking extraordinary means to violate their nature.
Matthew Shepard? that was what 15 years ago - not to mention there is evidence to suggest what happened to him had NOTHING to do with the fact he was gay but got involved in a drug deal gone wrong.
Yeah and how manny kids have killed themselves since then because they were teased for being "geeks", "fat", "ugly", "stupid" or even too smart or short just to name a few reasons..
Well, I suppose it is possibly that she is totally economically incompetent and stupid and this just dumb good luck on her part. Is that your point?
My point is 1.) how is this newsworthy and 2.) this did not take courage on her part as she faced no risks, only potential benefits - and that is what happened. She is an actor who made front page in a way acceptable and beneficial to her career.
These comparisons you are making are absolutely ridiculous. Are fat peopled prevented in most states from marrying each other? Was it ever a felony to be fat? Hell fat people are in the majority anymore. Moreover, someone that is obese can lose weight, someone that is gay cannot change their sexual preference.
People are defined by who they are and what they do. For example, I am married, white, straight, a father, an avid runner / cyclist, form the South originally and so on. Its quite easy to state I am these things because by and large society has been pretty easy on white straight guys. That is not all that defines me, but it is part of what does. Similarly, someone that is gay might be an avid runner, they may be from the South, in some cases they may be a father, they might be white, in a few states they might be married, but they are also gay and there is nothing wrong with that, it is just another aspect of their lives that defines them. Telling their friends and family that they are gay does not mean they are trying to be divisive, but rather that they are just revealing something about themselves. There is nothing liberal about that, and only a bigot would see anything wrong with that.
Finally, it does take some courage on their part to come out because unfortunately there are still a lot of religious and social conservatives that are not too keen on people being gay.
Do you ever NOT stereotype and make assumptions?The reality is that gays actually believe if the state enforces gay marriage that all of a sudden the residents of that state by de facto are forced to change their moral or ethics on the issue all because the state "says so" like we live in the North Korea and whatever the "dear leader" says goes - which is exactly what progressives want.
The evidence is rather flimsy.
Which is tragic. And also completely unrelated to the issue at hand here.
No one is preventing anyone from marrying anyone..... State contract law has no bias. What gays want "oddly enough" is de facto joint contractual and a financial affairs which is granted when a straight couple gets hitched.
^ I find that to be total bull**** considering most straight couples would probably feel uncomfortable with those precedences hence a prenub.
The reality is that gays actually believe if the state enforces gay marriage that all of a sudden the residents of that state by de facto are forced to change their moral or ethics on the issue all because the state "says so" like we live in the North Korea and whatever the "dear leader" says goes - which is exactly what progressives want.
I agree that it isn't newsworthy beyond, maybe, a blurb somewhere. "And in other news, Ellen Page comes out of the closet...now, to sports!" That I can understand. This front page, tear-filled interview? Yeah, I don't get it either.
Do you ever NOT stereotype and make assumptions?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?