- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,114
- Reaction score
- 33,457
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
And the purpose of a public poll is? I think we know.
And the purpose of a public poll is? I think we know.
I agree, i don't thinks it's really genetic, but something that happens developmentally either in the womb or early childhood... like the stressful pregnancy statistic i said earlier. But i also i agree that some genetic histories may make one more prone to the occurring if it does happen... which would explain the twin gay studies and any other genetic theories.
Personally I don't think homosexuality is purely genetic, I think we are born this way, but I think it is a variation of sexual development(which we know very little about in general), that some people may be genetically predisposition too. And it is very possible enough people with this genetic predisposition passed this along to future generations so that we have a fair amount of people who are homosexual today. You must note that possibly one doesn't have to be homosexual to carry this predisposition, I would wager that is very likely the case, on how this has been passed down through the generations.
That is totally illogical. If nature did not intend, flowers would not have a stamen and pistal. Hence they would not exist, no more than gay would exist aside from the fact it happens regardless of what the cause/s is/are.
I am appauled at the fact the gay agenda now touts that nature is irrelevant, doesnt exist. But it is yet another self serving attitude that is required to justify the percieved need that being gay is not only ok, it should be able to do what Nature never intended, reproduce. It is not possible. Adam and Steve could try till they die, they cannot reproduce ---> naturally.
Sorry, that's the way it is. We dont dictate nature, we can only muck it up or preserve it.
How so? Could you elaborate?
I do not know that it is a good idea to "cure" people who have been alive for many years and already have developed a personality and a sense of who they are. Are you sure people would be as outraged at the idea of targeting homosexual genes in children?
When humans evolved from apes, the sexual cues that males got from females had to evolve, and it is strongly suspected this is why women have enlarged breasts. The enlarged breasts are shaped(vaguely) like buttocks. This all happened fairly recently in evolutionary terms. Changes in sex drives and what people find attractive do change evolutionarily, and evolution can account for homosexuality.
I think a side affect of the evolved developing human sex drive has a slight chance of messing up in early development in the womb or early childhood. It shows that women who have a stressful pregnancy have a higher chance of having a gay child.
But what does that serve when in one thread we get a gaggle of contentious users?
Since we can't pin down the definition, and we know such argumentation would ensue, why even offer up the question?*
"Purpose" and "intend" require a conscious intent. Evolution is simply nature acting on billions and billions of combination randomly, and the random forces of nature selecting from those combination. Evolution is random. If you ask what the purpose of an opposable thumb is, the question is nonsense. If however you ask why we have opposable thumbs, that question does have meaning. We have opposable thumbs because it was a trait that arose from random mutations that gave those with the mutation a survival advantage. It's purpose is not to use tools, nor to grasp with, nor to suck, and yet those are all uses and advantages to thumbs.
And if nature did not intend, homosexuality wouldn't exist in the animal kingdom. As it turns out, it did.
That doesn't make sense at all...
Homosexuality would never come out of evolution, because homosexuals would not likely reproduce. It is an advantage however to have a hyper sex drive= more baby making. I think a side affect of the evolved developing human sex drive has a slight chance of messing up in early development in the womb or early childhood. It shows that women who have a stressful pregnancy have a higher chance of having a gay child.
I do not believe this to be the case and I am hard-pressed to think of any evolutionary benefit that homosexuality would provide.
For how you define the word "abnormal", do you consider gays to be "abnormal"?
No not necessarily, Thinks happen that nature does intend... but they usually die out. But i think there is a connection between a development of a human and some other animals sexual drive where a mess up can occur. The sex drive aspect would pass, but when the defect happens it wouldn't.
"purpose" / "intend" are just words to explain why things are the way they are, like why do we have a big butt compared to other primate? There is all an evolutionary reasoning/ "purpose"... homosexuality has no purpose, it is simply a side effect of some that has a purpose; much like any defect any human can have."Purpose" and "intend" require a conscious intent. Evolution is simply nature acting on billions and billions of combination randomly, and the random forces of nature selecting from those combination. Evolution is random. If you ask what the purpose of an opposable thumb is, the question is nonsense. If however you ask why we have opposable thumbs, that question does have meaning. We have opposable thumbs because it was a trait that arose from random mutations that gave those with the mutation a survival advantage. It's purpose is not to use tools, nor to grasp with, nor to suck, and yet those are all uses and advantages to thumbs.
I thought Darwin professed that the point of evolution was survival of the fittest. I would think that all members of said genus were meant to produce, not just a few. But then again if the point of evolution is to survive and multiply, how does this explain the homosexual or the man/woman who prefers to never have children? Odd..
Yes
Abnormal | Define Abnormal at Dictionary.com
1.
not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard: abnormal powers of concentration; an abnormal amount of snow; abnormal behavior.
Evolution has a method to it's madness... this is what you would call "purpose".
Homosexually clearly does not make you fit for evolution; therefore it is not "natural". It's a side effect of a developing sex drive that can happen. Your disregarding is that homosexuality COMPLETELY laughs at evolution in the face, it literally makes the ONLY way for any life to survive... unlikely, no species could survive with a entire gay population... sure some would get curious, but the population would eventually go down to zero.
That is totally illogical. If nature did not intend, flowers would not have a stamen and pistal. Hence they would not exist, no more than gay would exist aside from the fact it happens regardless of what the cause/s is/are.
I am appauled at the fact the gay agenda now touts that nature is irrelevant, doesnt exist. But it is yet another self serving attitude that is required to justify the percieved need that being gay is not only ok, it should be able to do what Nature never intended, reproduce. It is not possible. Adam and Steve could try till they die, they cannot reproduce ---> naturally.
Sorry, that's the way it is. We dont dictate nature, we can only muck it up or preserve it.
If we are going to say that gay people are "abnormal" because homosexuality is abnormal, then technically we are all abnormal because there is something about us as individuals that is not the norm.
And the purpose of a public poll is? I think we know.
Interesting, it is.
What proves/validates your belief?
Nature is not conscious, it does not "intend" anything.
So basically nature just "is" and we have absolutely no idea what we're supposed to do in life? It would seem like the safest position one could make about existence, yet it offers nothing for depth of understanding.
I base my statements on the theory of evolution.