[Eeyore[_4_]]

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial
means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 26, 5:41*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:





On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial
means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

A friend of mine's father came out of the closet after fathering four
children.

[Glanbrok[_2_]]

On Aug 26, 6:10*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"

A friend of mine's father came out of the closet after fathering four
children.

I heard that in Nebraska, your friend could get his father neutered
because of that duplicity.

[Eeyore[_4_]]

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

You use the term 'parented' very freely. 2 homosexuals cannot create a
child themselves, so if homosexuality was genetic it would have been
bred out thousands of years ago.

Clearly homosexual behaviour is a social issue. Look at Bonobo
chimpanzees for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#...ocial_behavior

Graham

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Eeyore m wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

You use the term 'parented' very freely. 2 homosexuals cannot create a
child themselves, so if homosexuality was genetic it would have been
bred out thousands of years ago.

Homosexual people are not generally sterile. Gay people consistently
contribute to the gene pool.

[Eeyore[_4_]]

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Eeyore m wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d
That might be true if gay people never parented children.
You use the term 'parented' very freely. 2 homosexuals cannot create a
child themselves, so if homosexuality was genetic it would have been
bred out thousands of years ago.

Homosexual people are not generally sterile. Gay people consistently
contribute to the gene pool.

But not in any great quantity.

The only 'gay' girl I know to have had children when pressed, admitted
that she considered herself actually bisexual and that's how she
conceived her kids.

Graham

[Clyde Slick]

On Aug 26, 10:07*pm, Eeyore
m wrote:


You use the term 'parented' very freely. 2 homosexuals cannot create a
child themselves,

certainly they can, a gay man and a gay woman

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On Aug 26, 10:07*pm, Eeyore
m wrote:


You use the term 'parented' very freely. 2 homosexuals cannot create a
child themselves,

certainly they can, a gay man and a gay woman

gay man, hetero woman; hetero man, gay woman.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Aug 26, 9:07*pm, Eeyore
m wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

You use the term 'parented' very freely. 2 homosexuals cannot create a
child themselves, so if homosexuality was genetic it would have been
bred out thousands of years ago.

Clearly homosexual behaviour is a social issue. Look at Bonobo
chimpanzees for example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#...ocial_behavior

You have 'solved' something that has been debated for years. LOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develop...ture.2Fnurture

Clearly your brain operates on a lower level than most. Consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial
means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

You don't need it to be "never". More rarely work quite nicely in
evolution.

d

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 27, 12:23*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn





wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial
means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

You don't need it to be "never". More rarely work quite nicely in
evolution.

What about that whole random thing?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:37:28 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to
Reason!" wrote:

On Aug 27, 12:23*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn





wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial
means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

You don't need it to be "never". More rarely work quite nicely in
evolution.

What about that whole random thing?

That's part of it. As long as you have two populations, one of which
breeds better than the other, the worse will eventually die out. I
think we can agree that homosexuals have a poorer breeding record than
heteros. This observation alone should be enough to convince that
homosexuality isn't an inherited trait.

d

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial
means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

Not really because it could be recessive.

True.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective
genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by
artificial
means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

Not really because it could be recessive.

True.

There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental or,
if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the incidence
in rats by manipulating population density.

Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,
assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
environmental triggers, even if dominate.

That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger it
could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one
really knows.


The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different issue, though.

As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against it.
;-)

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with
defective
genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by
artificial
means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How
about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty
quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

Not really because it could be recessive.

True.

There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental or,
if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the incidence
in rats by manipulating population density.

Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,
assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
environmental triggers, even if dominate.

That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger it
could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one
really knows.


The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different issue, though.

As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against it.
;-)

So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any differing
opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.

Oh, I've heard the legal arguments. Why would you jump to the
conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to be moronic?


I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines
normally-contradictory terms,

I know the word. I was doing a "play" on the word.

because it is.

Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as a
heterosexual relationship with "gay," by definition, 'monosexual', so
the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual heterosexual
relationship."

Have you looked up the definition of monosexual? I happen to be
monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most people are.

[Glanbrok[_2_]]

On Aug 26, 3:58*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

No, one wouldn't "imagine" such a thing. Do you know what a recessive
gene is?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:15:58 -0700 (PDT), Glanbrok
wrote:

On Aug 26, 3:58*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

No, one wouldn't "imagine" such a thing. Do you know what a recessive
gene is?


Yes I do. It is a gene that is only expressed when it is inherited
from both parents. Now, what has that to do with any of this?

d

[Clyde Slick]

On Aug 27, 5:53*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:15:58 -0700 (PDT), Glanbrok

wrote:
On Aug 26, 3:58*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

No, one wouldn't "imagine" such a thing. Do you know what a recessive
gene is?

Yes I do. It is a gene that is only expressed when it is inherited
from both parents. Now, what has that to do with any of this?

d

but it does not have to be expressed in both parents, just present in
the DNA

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:16:47 -0700 (PDT), Clyde Slick
wrote:

On Aug 27, 5:53*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:15:58 -0700 (PDT), Glanbrok

wrote:
On Aug 26, 3:58*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

No, one wouldn't "imagine" such a thing. Do you know what a recessive
gene is?

Yes I do. It is a gene that is only expressed when it is inherited
from both parents. Now, what has that to do with any of this?

d

but it does not have to be expressed in both parents, just present in
the DNA

"Expressed"means becoming active and producing the trait.

d

[Glanbrok[_2_]]

Poofie, are you having an aneurysm?

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

For a slavish devotee of Homer Simpson, you're pretty dumb even so.

[Trevor Wilson[_3_]]

Eeyore wrote:
Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective
genes (the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by
artificial means, or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

**Graham,

Please contact me ASAP.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au