Greatest I am
Active Member
Speaking the truth or offering an opinion is not denigrating anyone.
The only bigot here is you.
Regards
DL
If you think homosexuality is an unnatural condition...
- Thread starter VILEPLUME
- Start date
Speaking the truth or offering an opinion is not denigrating anyone.
The only bigot here is you.
Regards
DL
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
The great i am says"I'm not denigrating homosexuals I'm just saying they're defective compared to everyone else"
Cool story bro
I'm more than happy to admit my intolerance of cunts like yourself. It's clear to everybody here what your reasons are yet your too pathetic to be proud of your bigotry. Your feeble attempts at hiding behind an intellectual highground is glaring obvious to everyone here
Be proud of the bigoted pig inside you don't pretend it's not there
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
How could calling an entire group of people 'defective' be seen as anything but denigrating? You're implicitly saying homosexuals are 'broken'. You've also been offered evidence that shows homosexuals play strong roles in the suitability of hundreds of mammalian species, and you reject the evidence based on your understanding, as a laymen, of DNA.
That is the definition of a bigot.
Dislexicmidget2021
Well-Known Member
Greatest I am
Active Member
Is saying that the group born with a heart valve problemcaused by a defect in their DNA discrimination and denigration those in thatgroup?
No.
So why is it so for gays?
No one has yet to show that theirs is not a DNA and geneticcondition and logic says it is as that is what science is pointing to.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
Active Member
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
- People born with heart problems, actually do have a defect in their heart. They could die or have a limited life, because of the defects in their heart. Homosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals are completely healthy people, whom other than sexual preference are indistinguishable form heterosexuals.
If you took even the slightest amount of time to read some of the theories as to why people are gay, you'd have the answers you're looking for.
Also, for someone who talks about logic like they know a thing or two, you're prone to an awful lot of logical fallacies. Argument from Incredulity, begging the question, fallacy of the single cause, using a single authority, moving the goalposts.... I could go on, but until you have some understanding of why your arguments suck, there's really no point. But then again, bigots usually suck at arguing.
Here's some more evidence that helps refute your stance.
Bearman and Brückner (2002) criticized early studies of concentrating on small, select samples[SUP][7][/SUP] and non-representative selection of their subjects.[SUP][8][/SUP] They studied 289 pairs of identical twins (monozygotic or from one fertilized egg) and 495 pairs of fraternal twins (dizygotic or from two fertilized eggs) and found concordance rates for same-sex attraction of only 7.7% for male identical twins and 5.3% for females, a pattern which they say "does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context."[SUP][7][/SUP]
A 2010 study of all adult twins in Sweden (more than 7,600 twins)[SUP][9][/SUP] found that same-sex behavior was explained by both heritable factors and individual-specific environmental sources (such as prenatal environment, experience with illness and trauma, as well as peer groups, and sexual experiences), while influences of shared-environment variables such as familial environment and societal attitudes had a weaker, but significant effect. Women showed a statistically non-significant trend to weaker influence of hereditary effects, while men showed no effect of shared environmental effects. The use of all adult twins in Sweden was designed to address the criticism of volunteer studies, in which a potential bias towards participation by gay twins may influence the results;
Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34.39 of the variance [of sexual orientation], the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18.19 for genetic factors, .16.17 for shared environmental, and 64.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.[SUP][9][/SUP]
Greatest I am
Active Member
I see nothing conclusive yet.
Have you ever been into animal husbandry?
Pretend you are Mother Nature. If you were starting a farm, thatwas to compete fiercely with other farms, and were deciding which animals fromyour neighbor you were going to buy and some were homosexuals, some bisexuals, someasexual and some heterosexual, all completely healthy, which would you choose?
Regards
DL
Have you ever been into animal husbandry?
Pretend you are Mother Nature. If you were starting a farm, thatwas to compete fiercely with other farms, and were deciding which animals fromyour neighbor you were going to buy and some were homosexuals, some bisexuals, someasexual and some heterosexual, all completely healthy, which would you choose?
Regards
DL
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
are you retarded or something?
the ​Real mother nature* has chosen homosexuals, bisexuals, asexual and heterosexuals
We have been competing against our neighbours and guess what? Humans are by far and away the most successful breed on this planet with the homosexuals, bisexuals, asexual, and heterosexual mix
Looks like the Real mother nature* is doing something right
*THERE IS NO SUCH THING
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the strawman argument.
There's no amount of talking about purchasing animals for a farm that will make any sort of valid point about sexuality being a defect based on DNA. By your same silly argument you could say that any cow with a slightly smaller udder is also defective because a farmer might want cows with bigger udders. Or that only the absolute fastest horses are normal and all the rest are defective because someone selecting horses for racing would only want the fastest. It's absolutely ridiculous.
You already have your mind made up and no amount of evidence will dissuade you.
Bigot.
Grojak
Well-Known Member
At the risk of sounding like a bigot (screw you if you think I'm being one lol) We in the USA are living proof of a true breeding project that is often not talked about because it's not a "safe" topic. When those slave drivers were in African countries did the take just anyone, no they picked the biggest, strongest men, not sure how they chose the women but thats irrelevant to my point. I've read that slave owners would forcibly breed the strongest males to females so they could have bigger stronger slaves.
Now think about it, what sport do the african countries seem to excel in, marathon running and their always short skinny men. Those who sold slaves hand picked the biggest and stingiest of them. This has a direct coalition with the way blacks excel in sports in America, we only originally had the best of the best sold here.
Lurkdewitt
Well-Known Member
You took the words out of my mouth brother! Man, I'm having a really hard time not saying something dickish. This subject hits my "button" because I have seen my sister be called broken, immoral, confused, etc. The simple fact of the matter is that, we have no idea why people are gay! You can ponder and research about what makes them unique on your own or wait for more information to surface, but don't say they have defective DNA. They may have differences in their DNA compared to heterosexuals, but it doesn't make it a defect. I know you are not trying to discriminate, but depersonalizing a large number of people by calling them defective is just as bad IMO.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Dislexicmidget2021
Well-Known Member
Grojak
Well-Known Member
well fuck yea if Faux news reports something it must be true...
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
"They’re actually made to protect the fetus from too much natural variation. When testosterone gets too high, the epi-marks kick in to prevent the baby girl from getting too masculinized, and the inverse is true for boys."
So, this team of scientists says it's a natural protection measure. Doesn't sound very defective to me.... sounds like nature has that shit figured out to a tee.
Greatest I am
Active Member
You will have to admit that it is the genes that are doingthe work of creating gayness and that genes are controlled by DNA.
Break that obvious logic trail and then we can chat.
Regards
DL
Break that obvious logic trail and then we can chat.
Regards
DL
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Why are you leaving out the bit where you slip "defective" in there?
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
You, of all people shouldn't speak of logic when your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies.
Homosexuality is partially caused by DNA, way to state the obvious. It's also caused by hormones, temperatures, social stimulation, and a variety of other factors. None of which point to homosexuals being "defective".
Repeating the same incorrect shit doesn't make it right, just so you know...