NietzscheKeen
Well-Known Member
It's merely speculation.
Pope Francis Admits That A 'Gay Lobby' Influences The Vatican
- Thread starter SHOTGUN420
- Start date
SHOTGUN420
Active Member
The theory makes sense but since most gays want to marry, adopt and raise kids themselves. It defeats the theory.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
They are still using resources saved from not having their own child to help someone else's baby. Still a net gain.
NietzscheKeen
Well-Known Member
Ok, perhaps it does. It was just an ad hoc theory I made up to illustrate a different point.
From what I see, you're biggest concerns lie with the influence homosexuals may or may not have on children.
Allow me to paraphrase a few of your posts from memory; if I paraphrase you unjustly, let me know and I will change it.
If you haven't made these comments, perhaps you will at least agree with them.
Homosexuality is not natural, so it doesn't occur in nature. Hence it must be taught or someone must be influenced etc in order for them to become homosexual.
Homosexuality may or may not be real, it could be that people are just really horny; horny enough to have sex with someone of the same sex.
There would be no homosexuality if homosexuality was never taught.
Please correct me if I've said anything you disagree with.
NietzscheKeen
Well-Known Member
"No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins."
Reply when asked if he would give his life to save a drowning brother, as quoted in Mathematical Models of Social Evolution : A Guide for the Perplexed (2007) by Richard McElreath and Robert Boyd, p. 82; as you share on average half your alleles with a brother and one-eighth with a cousin, Haldane was giving the number of relatives one would have to save to "break even".
SHOTGUN420
Active Member
yes I agree with all that. Its taught and publicized making it seem like a cool new trend.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
now it just seems like you're not literate.
NietzscheKeen
Well-Known Member
1. Well, if I was able to convince you that homosexuality wasn't a choice, but that it was determined before birth, would you feel better about the situation?
2. Is there anything anyone could do to make you attracted to another male or is your heterosexuality so deeply ingrained in your brain that nothing, short of brain surgery, could change your preference?
3. You do not believe homosexuality to be immoral, correct?
While I give you that it being more accepted today may make it more likely for people to experiment, I don't think it will change anyone's sexuality.
SHOTGUN420
Active Member
1. No it wouldn't change my mind that gays raising kids is unnatural.
2. Nothing would ever change my mind . I love pussy. I don't think any brain surgery exists to change my mind.
3. I'm not religious . I don't care with they do between themselves but they shouldn't bring a child into it.
NietzscheKeen
Well-Known Member
Why would it change anyone else's?
So you're saying that since two men can't have kids naturally, then it is therefore unnatural for them to raise children. Correct?
I fall back to the argument, what about women who can't have children naturally; is it unnatural for them to raise children?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yet oddly enough, it happens in nature.
i might as well watch two dogs debate whose ass smells better. but you two are pretty entertaining too.
Hazydat620
Well-Known Member
Why you getting so butt hurt Buck? Nietz is going about it the right way, making shotgun420 look like an ass, using logical thinking to show just how irrational Shotguns thinking is. Nietz is making himself seem educated, you are making yourself seem childish.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how educated did he seem when he botched the definition of homophobia?
Hazydat620
Well-Known Member
whats your definition of homophobia?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
we don't get to just make up definitions for things, ya know. and the various definitions have already been posted.
Hazydat620
Well-Known Member
This Debate could be solved easily, stick 20 infants, 15 female and 5 male (yes I can add.) on a remote Island with no outside influences. Then we can really see what "nature" is really capable of, and see just how much of what you believe, is actually taught. . You'll probably see... no god worshiped, no marriage, probably no monogamous relationships and on and on.
Hazydat620
Well-Known Member
weren't those posted by Nietz? and then you said he botched the definitions? or did I miss something?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
twin studies are better.
yeah, he did post them. his botching up of things had to do with his claim that disapproval and aversion are not the same thing.
SHOTGUN420
Active Member
waste of time trying to skim through the spam. Buck never brings anything to the table just talks shit. Then I see people posting shit about god . I never said a fucking thing about a god. Fuck your god. I don't care just like I don't care if gays fuck each other or marry or whatever. Just leave the children alone.
I'm done debating here about a topic that I really don't care about. Cheers Nietz.
I'm done debating here about a topic that I really don't care about. Cheers Nietz.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
You did the moment you spoke of nature's intent. The only time "intent" comes up in discussions of nature is when the starting point is creationist. So not only a god, but an engaged one, Abrahamic-style. cn