If you think homosexuality is an unnatural condition...

J

joe macclennan

Well-Known Member
this is not evidence. Simply an opinion. So Theory would more accurately describe what you are posting.

I am asking for direct evidence to back your claims of dna being defective in homosexual individuals.

not opinion or theory.
 
Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Active Member
joe macclennan said:
this is not evidence. Simply an opinion. So Theory would more accurately describe what you are posting.

I am asking for direct evidence to back your claims of dna being defective in homosexual individuals.

not opinion or theory.
Click to expand...

I gave a wiki page showing that science points to conditionsor cause that all have to do with DNA.

The only other cause that has had any air time is nurtureand that has been debunked.

If nature is the cause, and I think it is, it is in causinga defect in the DNA.

What other natural condition would ever place such acondition in a species that reproduces thanks to the attraction of the oppositesex?

No positive one.

And yes. Until the actual mechanism is discovered, mineremains just opinion and theory but you will note that it is the best that hasbeen offered so far here.

I am quite willing to be corrected but no one is offering abetter alternative.

Regards
DL
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Greatest I am said:
You make half my point and kill half of yours.

Only half, unless both parties find a surrogate, willreproduce and it is not a reproduction based on love.

Let us hope that we never find non-human surrogates.

Regards
DL

Click to expand...
Non-sequitur much? Your incoherent points don't lead anywhere. Love has nothing to do with reproduction in the strictest sense.

Your argument rests on the premise that gay people don't procreate therefore, it's unnatural and a 'defect'. If gay people were born without the ability to reproduce, you could call it a defect. Since they're completely capable, and do very frequently procreate, there's no reason to label their preference of companionship as a defect.

There's nothing being inhibited by being gay or lesbian so how does it logically follow that being attracted to someone of the same sex makes you defective?

What crazy non-human surrogate future is your bigoted mind dreaming up now? One where gay people don't have to go through the troubles of finding a surrogate? Oh the chaos! How will humanity survive???
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Greatest I am said:
I gave a wiki page showing that science points to conditionsor cause that all have to do with DNA.

The only other cause that has had any air time is nurtureand that has been debunked.

If nature is the cause, and I think it is, it is in causinga defect in the DNA.

What other natural condition would ever place such acondition in a species that reproduces thanks to the attraction of the oppositesex?

No positive one.

And yes. Until the actual mechanism is discovered, mineremains just opinion and theory but you will note that it is the best that hasbeen offered so far here.

I am quite willing to be corrected but no one is offering abetter alternative.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
You're just calling something different a defect with no understanding of what a genetic defect is beyond that of copy and pasting a wiki page.

You're a laymen attempting to discuss DNA, and failing miserably.
 
Nice Ol Bud

Nice Ol Bud

Well-Known Member
What can I say... nothing...
Isn't this like... awesome? Christians finally turning around.

I like his "New testament"...
 
Nice Ol Bud

Nice Ol Bud

Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit said:
Non-sequitur much? Your incoherent points don't lead anywhere. Love has nothing to do with reproduction in the strictest sense.

Your argument rests on the premise that gay people don't procreate therefore, it's unnatural and a 'defect'. If gay people were born without the ability to reproduce, you could call it a defect. Since they're completely capable, and do very frequently procreate, there's no reason to label their preference of companionship as a defect.

There's nothing being inhibited by being gay or lesbian so how does it logically follow that being attracted to someone of the same sex makes you defective?

What crazy non-human surrogate future is your bigoted mind dreaming up now? One where gay people don't have to go through the troubles of finding a surrogate? Oh the chaos! How will humanity survive???
Click to expand...
It all doesn't matter...
In 50 years anyways all of us are going to have a dick and a pussy from the radioactive and chemical warfare..

:D
 
Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Active Member
Beefbisquit said:
Non-sequitur much? Your incoherent points don't lead anywhere. Love has nothing to do with reproduction in the strictest sense.

Your argument rests on the premise that gay people don't procreate therefore, it's unnatural and a 'defect'. If gay people were born without the ability to reproduce, you could call it a defect. Since they're completely capable, and do very frequently procreate, there's no reason to label their preference of companionship as a defect.

There's nothing being inhibited by being gay or lesbian so how does it logically follow that being attracted to someone of the same sex makes you defective?

What crazy non-human surrogate future is your bigoted mind dreaming up now? One where gay people don't have to go through the troubles of finding a surrogate? Oh the chaos! How will humanity survive???
Click to expand...

"Your argument rests on the premise that gay peopledon't procreate".

Not exactly. My argument is based on the fact that they areattracted to those they cannot reproduce with and left alone or if no surrogateis available, they would not likely reproduce at all.

Their sperm and eggs are fine. It is the desire of the deliverysystem that is screwed up.

Regards
DL
 
Dislexicmidget2021

Dislexicmidget2021

Well-Known Member
Greatest I am said:
Does healthynon-defective human DNA produce people who will faithfully reproduce as allanimal life does, given the opportunity, with their non-defective DNA?

Yes it does.

Therefor defective DNA will produce humans who will not orcannot.

This part^ of your response is an assumptive grasp at best.DNA defects cause accelerated aging or cancer,also malformation of organs and or body parts,though malformed organs or body parts has more to do with the process of apoptosis being disrupted by defective cellular signals.There has been no scientificaly supported data that"defective" DNA is the cause of homosexuality.It however has been linked to exposure of sexual chemicals while in the womb.There is actual data and study on this particular occurance in tests involving Lab Rats in 1992,finding that exposure to sexual chemicals at critical points of brain develpement effects sexual orientation.
You seem to hold onto a bias opinion without actualy doing any real homework.I suggest giving the link a read through.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...lity-a-choice/
Click to expand...
 
JonnyAppleSeed420

JonnyAppleSeed420

New Member
I have no issues what others do in their own time but honestly what if we were all gay? Think about it for a minute...not a natural selection...its a choice IMHO. JAS
 
Dislexicmidget2021

Dislexicmidget2021

Well-Known Member
well,,while you are entitled to your opinion,,I disagree with it.I dont think that it is simply a"choice".My favorite brand of rootbeer,the clothes I wear,the music I listen to ,,,those are choices.Do you think that a homosexual can simply choose to be not gay?If so then I would like to see your explaination,,
 
W

Wilksey

Well-Known Member
Being born without arms or legs is a "natural condition" as well, but that doesn't mean it's "right".
 
Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Active Member
Dislexicmidget2021 said:
Greatest I am said:
Does healthynon-defective human DNA produce people who will faithfully reproduce as allanimal life does, given the opportunity, with their non-defective DNA?

Yes it does.

Therefor defective DNA will produce humans who will not orcannot.

This part^ of your response is an assumptive grasp at best.DNA defects cause accelerated aging or cancer,also malformation of organs and or body parts,though malformed organs or body parts has more to do with the process of apoptosis being disrupted by defective cellular signals.There has been no scientificaly supported data that"defective" DNA is the cause of homosexuality.It however has been linked to exposure of sexual chemicals while in the womb.There is actual data and study on this particular occurance in tests involving Lab Rats in 1992,finding that exposure to sexual chemicals at critical points of brain develpement effects sexual orientation.
You seem to hold onto a bias opinion without actualy doing any real homework.I suggest giving the link a read through.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...lity-a-choice/
Click to expand...

Good info.

Note that the effects of those sexual drugs.

You recognized that they affected the various organs but youwill know that they do so at the cellular level and that means at the DNA level.

If as you say, we are affected and turned gay at that level,it is the DNA being made defective that is the root of the gayness.

See it?

Regards
DL


Click to expand...
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Greatest I am said:
"Your argument rests on the premise that gay peopledon't procreate".

Not exactly. My argument is based on the fact that they areattracted to those they cannot reproduce with and left alone or if no surrogateis available, they would not likely reproduce at all.

Their sperm and eggs are fine. It is the desire of the deliverysystem that is screwed up.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
You are confusing sexual desires with desire to reproduce. If your thesis were correct, homosexual mammals would have gone extinct long ago. They haven't, therefore you're incorrect in your reasoning. It's fairly simple.

Certainly, we would notice a decline in homosexuality VIA natural selection if it weren't in some way beneficial. You're only looking at the cost benefit analysis of the reproduction of a species when there could be countless beneficial factors also derived from homosexuality that you are purposefully (or ignorantly) leaving out of your argument.

Many, MANY, cultures have revered homosexuality in various forms; it added to their culture and society. Look at homosexuality in some Native American tribes. Men were assigned 'women-like' duties, and were expected to be leaders of the women. They raised children, and helped do the incredibly difficult work that Native American women performed on a daily basis. A perfect fit in their society, which would certainly be at a loss without the benefit of these homosexuals.

So, despite your statements, it seems homosexuality does serve a purpose or the trait would have been lost along the ages....
 
Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Active Member
Beefbisquit said:
You are confusing sexual desires with desire to reproduce. If your thesis were correct, homosexual mammals would have gone extinct long ago. They haven't, therefore you're incorrect in your reasoning. It's fairly simple.
Click to expand...
If it was natural, it would grow as gays would pass on thatgene. They do not as most of their offspring are not inheriting gayness. If adefect then the numbers should be stable.

Do you see gay numbers getting higher?

Certainly, we would notice a decline in homosexuality VIA natural selection if it weren't in some way beneficial.
Click to expand...
Or just stable if a defect.
You're only looking at the cost benefit analysis of the reproduction of a species when there could be countless beneficial factors also derived from homosexuality that you are purposefully (or ignorantly) leaving out of your argument.

Many, MANY, cultures have revered homosexuality in various forms; it added to their culture and society. Look at homosexuality in some Native American tribes. Men were assigned 'women-like' duties, and were expected to be leaders of the women. They raised children, and helped do the incredibly difficult work that Native American women performed on a daily basis. A perfect fit in their society, which would certainly be at a loss without the benefit of these homosexuals.

So, despite your statements, it seems homosexuality does serve a purpose or the trait would have been lost along the ages....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Quite the reach here my friend.

Those gays were put with the women because the men werelikely uncomfortable with them.

Regards
DL
 
Dislexicmidget2021

Dislexicmidget2021

Well-Known Member
Greatest I am said:
Dislexicmidget2021 said:
Good info.

Note that the effects of those sexual drugs.

You recognized that they affected the various organs but youwill know that they do so at the cellular level and that means at the DNA level.

If as you say, we are affected and turned gay at that level,it is the DNA being made defective that is the root of the gayness.

See it?

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
We know from studying rats that exposure to sex hormones in the womb during a critical period in brain development affects future sexual orientation. By manipulating hormone levels during this time, scientists can make rats engage in homosexual behavior later on.
The root of the Homosexual tendency would begin in the womb actualy,Not from DNA turning defective as you would say.If they didnt perform the study the rats still had the possibility of naturaly influenced homosexuality in the womb,it dosent make the DNA defective,its a natural design of reproduction and survivability of the species,,,.You dont seem to take that into consideration, as you regard it "defective".
Click to expand...
 
Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Active Member
Dislexicmidget2021 said:
Greatest I am said:
We know from studying rats that exposure to sex hormones in the womb during a critical period in brain development affects future sexual orientation. By manipulating hormone levels during this time, scientists can make rats engage in homosexual behavior later on.
The root of the Homosexual tendency would begin in the womb actualy,Not from DNA turning defective as you would say.If they didnt perform the study the rats still had the possibility of naturaly influenced homosexuality in the womb,it dosent make the DNA defective,its a natural design of reproduction and survivability of the species,,,.You dont seem to take that into consideration, as you regard it "defective".
Click to expand...

How is the survivability of a species that depends onreproduction enhanced by having members who will not reproduce?

It obviously is not.

All drugs work at the cellular level and that means it affectsDNA.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Greatest I am said:
Quite the reach here my friend.

Those gays were put with the women because the men werelikely uncomfortable with them.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
Who's reaching now? They were 'uncomfortable with them'? How could you possibly know that?

Maybe if you actually read up on it, instead of guessing you wouldn't need to reach beyond your means.

Maybe you should look up 'two-spirit' people, or 'berdaches'.
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Greatest I am said:
How is the survivability of a species that depends onreproduction enhanced by having members who will not reproduce?

It obviously is not.

All drugs work at the cellular level and that means it affectsDNA.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
You're creating a false dichotomy when there are many factors that contribute to the sustainability of a species, not just strictly reproduction.

A very small percentage of drugs cause birth defects. Most drugs don't affect DNA at all. They create inhibitory or excitatory electro-chemical responses in your brain which alters your body's chemistry; but not your actual DNA.
 
Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Active Member
Beefbisquit said:
Who's reaching now? They were 'uncomfortable with them'? How could you possibly know that?

Maybe if you actually read up on it, instead of guessing you wouldn't need to reach beyond your means.

Maybe you should look up 'two-spirit' people, or 'berdaches'.
Click to expand...
Oh I do not doubt that the odd tribe might do as you say butif we look at world history, gays have generally been ostracized by societiesespecially where the Abrahamic cults ruled. Hell, they even hated women back inthe day.

Regards
DL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top