[Glanbrok[_2_]]

flippie flips out.

*Is this somehow
related to same-sex marriage?

I'm not sure how anything relates to an oxymoron.

If this comment represents your personal view of your own intellect, I
can understand why you don't want your posts archived.

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

On Aug 30, 1:55*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:07:09 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to





Reason!" wrote:
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.

I disagree. As long as there's discrimination there's a reason to hide
one's orientation. Look at all the "conservative republicans" who have
been outed, yet have families. Ditti those in the military. And those
are just two examples.

In a vacuum your argument might even work. It doesn't in real life
though.

I have no idea how your response addresses my post. I am talking about
genetics; no more and no less. Whether - and even how - anybody is
"outed" has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

Your argument is based in a theoretical vacuum.

To claim that homosexuals would "die out" due to not breeding as well
doesn't hold water for several reasons including random variation, the
fact that some gays hide their orientation and have families, and so
on.

Now to your point: you clearly don't believe homosexuality is a
genetic condition. At what school do you learn to be gay? And if it's
not learned behavior but a choice, how come that question has never
occurred to me, or I presume to you?

[Clyde Slick]

On Aug 31, 11:41*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:


At what school do you learn to be gay?

I am having trouble finding the exact institution of
higher learning, but I have narrowed it down to
being located somewhere in Michigan.

http://www.cornholegameplayers.com/f...t=4312&start=0

[Glanbrok[_2_]]

On Aug 31, 10:41*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"

Now to your point: you clearly don't believe [sexuality] is a
genetic [trait].

(Note: I PC-ed your sentence for Pearce's benefit, not yours. I'm sure
you were just using shorthand phrasing.)

At what school do you learn to be gay?

Herr Schhh, pliz lie on der couch und tell us about your repressed
hatred of your fotter. Den ve vill establish vy Sie vants to have sex
mit deine mother, ja?

And if it's not learned behavior but a choice, how come that question
has never occurred to me, or I presume to you?

Well, that's an easy question. Neither of you elected to take Cock
Appreciation 101.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:31:58 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:


Making new misrepresentations is not an improvement as I was explicit
in the discussion of how definitions change over time and usage but
that summary declarations for political purposes is not legitimate.

Why do you presume that gay people call their committed relationships
marriages for political reasons?

You are either incredibly naive or demagoging and your propensity for
nitpicking selected out of context snippets while avoiding substance
suggests to me the later.

It is a popular tactic known in political circles as "framing" (the
debate, issue, question, etc) and, besides the oxymoron 'gay
marriage', another good example is (The) Freedom of Choice (Act) and
the companion ballot box slogan "Pro Choice." Well, Katy bar the door,
who in a free society could possibly be against "freedom" and
"choice?" Break out the drum, fife, and unfurl the flag, boys, the
British are coming to take away our "Freedom of Choice."

Of course, robbing a liquor store is a "choice" too but you don't see
many folks storming up Bunker Hill to defend it. In fact, pretty much
every thing 'illegal' or 'prohibited' involves a matter of "choice"
so, in fact, the 'slogan' has nothing to do with the issue at hand and
is an attempt to force debate around what is nothing more than an
irrational emotional reaction.

The oxymoron "gay marriage" attempts to 'frame' that debate by trying
to make it virtually impossible to even mention or discuss the matter
without accepting the premise of redefinition and, like "Freedom of
Choice,' seeks to avoid any rational discourse of the actual issue.

Could it be that they do so simply
because that is how they view them and there is no difference between
same-sex marriage and hetero marriage, aside from legal issues?

Besides having given you prima facie proof of the opposite, none of
the "gay people" I know, whether 'activists' or not, are anywhere near
the brainless twits you imply they are, as the popular description of
heterosexuals as "breeders" indicates.

OF COURSE there is a political aspect to this, as the people making the
decisions are doing so as part of the political process. But your
implication that it's all about politics is discounting the effect that
this issue has on real people's lives. Your "definition" argument is
simply silly. Virtually every change in a law changes a definition.
Loving v. Virginia changed the definition of marriage. To ignore that
fact is stupid.

"Breeders"? lol

[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

[Eeyore[_4_]]

Clyde Slick wrote:

Homosexuals can and do act normal, from time to time.

:-)

Graham

p.s. define 'normal'

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 5, 2:57*am, Eeyore
m wrote:
Clyde Slick wrote:
Homosexuals can and do act normal, from time to time.

:-)

Graham

p.s. define 'normal'

heterosexual
the mode nature intended us to have, for survival of the species.
which requires a man and a woman to have sex with each other.
we are designed with having the desires that lead to that result.
So, normal is heterosexual, our intended design by nature.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
flipper wrote:


Actually, it's you who's never discussed one thing about the
"effect... on real people's lives."

I would be happy to do so if you are interested.

[Jenn[_3_]]

On Sep 5, 10:28*am, flipper wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 08:42:23 -0700, Jenn

wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:

Actually, it's you who's never discussed one thing about the
"effect... on real people's lives."

I would be happy to do so if you are interested.

Only if you first provide a dictionary so we know what words are being
redefined on the fly.

In those states and countries where same-sex marriage was once
outlawed but now is legal, the definition of legal marriage has, as it
has before, changed. That's all the dictionary that is needed.

Now, do you wish to discuss?

[Eeyore[_4_]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
On Sep 5, 2:57 am, Eeyore wrote:
Clyde Slick wrote:

Homosexuals can and do act normal, from time to time.
:-)

Graham

p.s. define 'normal'

heterosexual
the mode nature intended us to have, for survival of the species.
which requires a man and a woman to have sex with each other.
we are designed with having the desires that lead to that result.
So, normal is heterosexual, our intended design by nature.

I tend to generally agree although sexually diverse behaviour seems also
to be quite normal. For examle a few of my girlfriends were in fact
bisexual.

If interested, also see my link to Bonobo sexual behaviour, illustrating
that it is not unique to humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#...ocial_behavior

Addiionally, based on an experience I had, I suspect some girls may
start out 'straight' but become tired of the juvenile male behaviour of
their peers, resulting in them looking elsewhere. And no, I wasn't the
juvenile male, simply an intelligent easy-going guy who knew her through
her brothers and one evening at a club she made quite a friendly 'move'
on me that took me totally by surprise. I could elaborate but find
myself struggling for words.


Graham

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 18:05:46 -0700 (PDT), Jenn
wrote:

On Sep 5, 10:28*am, flipper wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 08:42:23 -0700, Jenn

wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:

Actually, it's you who's never discussed one thing about the
"effect... on real people's lives."

I would be happy to do so if you are interested.

Only if you first provide a dictionary so we know what words are being
redefined on the fly.

In those states and countries where same-sex marriage was once
outlawed but now is legal, the definition of legal marriage has, as it
has before, changed.

Chatty Cathy pull ring falsehood.

My statement is absolutely true.


And corporations are 'persons'.

That's all the dictionary that is needed.

You've proved that it isn't.

Now, do you wish to discuss?

There's no point to a 'discussion' with a Chatty Cathy doll.

You're very good at calling names, but you are very poor at basic
reasoning. You've been backed into a corner, and you don't know how to
quit while you're behind. Have a nice life...

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Sep 7, 10:22*am, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*flipper wrote:

That's amusing coming from someone who began the Chatty Cathy
impersonation by summarily declaring anyone who disagreed with your
pull ring recording a 'moron'.

False accusation. *Please show where I've done that.

Flippy is almost as good at running in circles as 2pid is. Almost.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Sep 7, 12:40*pm, flipper wrote:

Just for chuckles, when the Court said, in Loving v Virginia, that
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to
our very existence and survival.... " just what do you think the word
"marriage" meant and how was it different from the Racial Integrity
Act ban of it when mixed race? And if the definition is 'different'
then what bearing does the Court's assessment of "marriage" have on
the 'other thing' the Racial Integrity Act prohibited?

Actually, Flippy, you cut out an important piece of that ruling. Here,
let me help you correct your intellectual dishonesty:

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous
decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a
law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of
another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black
violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The
court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both
the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:

“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to
our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom
on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in
these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the
principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is
surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due
process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person
of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by
the State.

Let me emphasize that last sentence:

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person
of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by
the State."

A couple of points, Flippy: it does not mention anywhere that it has
to be between a man and a woman. Further, the freedom to marry is left
to the individual and "cannot be infringed upon by the State".

If indeed the definition needs to change the ruling in California will
help facilitate that, if only for bozos such as yourself.

The answer is that no definitions 'changed', not to mention everything
else I've explained such as decisions having no meaning unless one
knows that the bloody hell definition of the words are.

Stephen gave you a very nice (and long) list of how there are
different definitions. You chose to ignore that.

Puuuuuull ring.

No, you're doing fine pulling it all on your own.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
flipper wrote:

Stephen gave you a very nice (and long) list of how there are
different definitions. You chose to ignore that.

I have no idea who 'Stephen' is nor have I seen any 'list'.

He must be reading from alt.religion.scientology, as I've trimmed that
group from my replies.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Sep 7, 8:19*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,

*flipper wrote:
Stephen gave you a very nice (and long) list of how there are
different definitions. You chose to ignore that.

I have no idea who 'Stephen' is nor have I seen any 'list'.

He must be reading from alt.religion.scientology, as I've trimmed that
group from my replies.

Alternatively, he's just ignorant.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:22:57 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:56:48 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 18:05:46 -0700 (PDT), Jenn
wrote:

On Sep 5, 10:28*am, flipper wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 08:42:23 -0700, Jenn

wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:

Actually, it's you who's never discussed one thing about the
"effect... on real people's lives."

I would be happy to do so if you are interested.

Only if you first provide a dictionary so we know what words are
being
redefined on the fly.

In those states and countries where same-sex marriage was once
outlawed but now is legal, the definition of legal marriage has, as it
has before, changed.

Chatty Cathy pull ring falsehood.

My statement is absolutely true.

I've proved it false multiple times

Far from it.

I didn't say you were capable of comprehending it.

Just for chuckles, when the Court said, in Loving v Virginia, that
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to
our very existence and survival.... " just what do you think the word
"marriage" meant and how was it different from the Racial Integrity
Act ban of it when mixed race? And if the definition is 'different'
then what bearing does the Court's assessment of "marriage" have on
the 'other thing' the Racial Integrity Act prohibited?

The answer is that no definitions 'changed', not to mention everything
else I've explained such as decisions having no meaning unless one
knows that the bloody hell definition of the words are.

Definition of marriage before Loving: a civil union that can be
restricted according to race.
Definition after Loving: a civil union that cannot be restricted
according to race.

Puuuuuull ring.

but there's little reason to
bother doing it again as a Chatty Cathy doll can't 'hear'; it simply
repeats the same recording when one pulls the ring and that's neither
'discussion' nor 'debate'.

And corporations are 'persons'.

That's all the dictionary that is needed.

You've proved that it isn't.

Now, do you wish to discuss?

There's no point to a 'discussion' with a Chatty Cathy doll.

You're very good at calling names, but you are very poor at basic
reasoning. You've been backed into a corner, and you don't know how to
quit while you're behind. Have a nice life...

That's amusing coming from someone who began the Chatty Cathy
impersonation by summarily declaring anyone who disagreed with your
pull ring recording a 'moron'.

False accusation. Please show where I've done that.

Inability to recall previous sound emanations is the natural result of
a Chatty Cathy doll having no writable memory storage.

Obviously, you can't back up your accusations. "Big surprise".

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Sep 9, 10:35*am, flipper wrote:

What the hell did I make illegal and how do you know if the damn
definition of bowling keeps changing?

I hereby rescind the law making bowling illegal.

Lawn bowling, league bowling, bowling someone over, bowling food, the
act of bowling in cricket, or what?

Language is a living thing, Flippy. If you want to find out how much
English word definitions have evolved all you need to do is look at
the OED. Many words once in common use have vanished, others have
radically different meanings.

[Android Cat]

"Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!" wrote in message
...
On Sep 9, 10:35 am, flipper wrote:

What the hell did I make illegal and how do you know if the damn
definition of bowling keeps changing?

I hereby rescind the law making bowling illegal.

Lawn bowling, league bowling, bowling someone over, bowling food, the
act of bowling in cricket, or what?

Language is a living thing, Flippy. If you want to find out how much
English word definitions have evolved all you need to do is look at
the OED. Many words once in common use have vanished, others have
radically different meanings.

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell
you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many
different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's
all.'

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Sep 10, 11:14*am, "Android Cat" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!" wrote in ....

On Sep 9, 10:35 am, flipper wrote:

What the hell did I make illegal and how do you know if the damn
definition of bowling keeps changing?

I hereby rescind the law making bowling illegal.

Lawn bowling, league bowling, bowling someone over, bowling food, the
act of bowling in cricket, or what?

Language is a living thing, Flippy. If you want to find out how much
English word definitions have evolved all you need to do is look at
the OED. Many words once in common use have vanished, others have
radically different meanings.

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell
you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many
different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's
all.'

This stuff must come from the scientology group.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Sep 10, 1:36*pm, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 23:47:21 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh! I'm listening to

reason!" wrote:
On Sep 9, 10:35*am, flipper wrote:

What the hell did I make illegal and how do you know if the damn
definition of bowling keeps changing?

I hereby rescind the law making bowling illegal.

Lawn bowling, league bowling, bowling someone over, bowling food, the
act of bowling in cricket, or what?

Take your pick. The example works fine with anything.

But thank you for inadvertently illustrating my point that no
decision, legal or otherwise, that ignores the definition of the words
used has merit.

What a dumb thing to say. And what a dumb point to make.

Language is a living thing, Flippy. If you want to find out how much
English word definitions have evolved all you need to do is look at
the OED. Many words once in common use have vanished, others have
radically different meanings.

Well, thank you for repeating what I've already said but maybe if you
didn't routinely snip and mangle messages to hell and back trying to
manufacture some irrelevant 'gotcha' you'd have known that.

Language evolves but arbitrary declaration for political opportunism
and judicial fiat is not 'evolution'; it's a dishonest tactic
specifically designed to preclude debate of the merits and an attempt
at Orwellian new speak mind control.

It's funny how some people feel they can decide what's "arbitrary" and
"opportunistic" when they don't have the brainpower or the objectivity
to do so.

[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.

[Clyde Slick]

On Sep 10, 9:11*pm, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:14:32 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh! I'm listening to





reason!" wrote:
On Sep 10, 1:36*pm, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 23:47:21 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh! I'm listening to

reason!" wrote:
On Sep 9, 10:35*am, flipper wrote:

What the hell did I make illegal and how do you know if the damn
definition of bowling keeps changing?

I hereby rescind the law making bowling illegal.

Lawn bowling, league bowling, bowling someone over, bowling food, the
act of bowling in cricket, or what?

Take your pick. The example works fine with anything.

But thank you for inadvertently illustrating my point that no
decision, legal or otherwise, that ignores the definition of the words
used has merit.

What a dumb thing to say. And what a dumb point to make.

It's a point so simple as to be almost trivially obvious to most sane
people and the only thing 'dumb' about it is your confusion.





Language is a living thing, Flippy. If you want to find out how much
English word definitions have evolved all you need to do is look at
the OED. Many words once in common use have vanished, others have
radically different meanings.

Well, thank you for repeating what I've already said but maybe if you
didn't routinely snip and mangle messages to hell and back trying to
manufacture some irrelevant 'gotcha' you'd have known that.

Language evolves but arbitrary declaration for political opportunism
and judicial fiat is not 'evolution'; it's a dishonest tactic
specifically designed to preclude debate of the merits and an attempt
at Orwellian new speak mind control.

It's funny how some people feel they can decide what's "arbitrary" and
"opportunistic" when they don't have the brainpower or the objectivity
to do so.

You would be intimately familiar with lack of both brain power and
objectivity, all right.

There was no 'evolving' linguistic groundswell and the oxymoron 'gay
marriage' spontaneously sprang forth from gay activist groups seeking
through court fiat, precisely because there was no 'evolving'
groundswell, what they perceive to be the 'status' and various
privileges of marriage.- Hide quoted text -

-

speaking of linguistics, since "marriage" isn't gay, they needed to
talk of "gay marriage",
like it is something else, which it is!

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Sep 11, 2:51*am, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:54:47 -0700 (PDT), Clyde Slick





wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:11*pm, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:14:32 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh! I'm listening to

reason!" wrote:
On Sep 10, 1:36*pm, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 23:47:21 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh! I'm listening to

reason!" wrote:
On Sep 9, 10:35*am, flipper wrote:

What the hell did I make illegal and how do you know if the damn
definition of bowling keeps changing?

I hereby rescind the law making bowling illegal.

Lawn bowling, league bowling, bowling someone over, bowling food, the
act of bowling in cricket, or what?

Take your pick. The example works fine with anything.

But thank you for inadvertently illustrating my point that no
decision, legal or otherwise, that ignores the definition of the words
used has merit.

What a dumb thing to say. And what a dumb point to make.

It's a point so simple as to be almost trivially obvious to most sane
people and the only thing 'dumb' about it is your confusion.

Language is a living thing, Flippy. If you want to find out how much
English word definitions have evolved all you need to do is look at
the OED. Many words once in common use have vanished, others have
radically different meanings.

Well, thank you for repeating what I've already said but maybe if you
didn't routinely snip and mangle messages to hell and back trying to
manufacture some irrelevant 'gotcha' you'd have known that.

Language evolves but arbitrary declaration for political opportunism
and judicial fiat is not 'evolution'; it's a dishonest tactic
specifically designed to preclude debate of the merits and an attempt
at Orwellian new speak mind control.

It's funny how some people feel they can decide what's "arbitrary" and
"opportunistic" when they don't have the brainpower or the objectivity
to do so.

You would be intimately familiar with lack of both brain power and
objectivity, all right.

There was no 'evolving' linguistic groundswell and the oxymoron 'gay
marriage' spontaneously sprang forth from gay activist groups seeking
through court fiat, precisely because there was no 'evolving'
groundswell, what they perceive to be the 'status' and various
privileges of marriage.- Hide quoted text -

-

speaking of linguistics, since "marriage" isn't gay, they needed to
talk of "gay marriage",
like it is something else, which it is!

It isn't gender neutral either. It's a male-female union and to stick
"gay" (or single sex or other synonym) onto the front creates an
oxymoron (homosexual heterosexual) akin to saying "female bull."
I'm sorry but no matter what you do to the poor bull it just aint so,
unless you strip words of their meaning which, of course, is the
'sneaky trick' to the strategy as well as the objection to it.

Tell ya what. We can solve the problem by simply redefining "gay" as
happy people sexually attracted solely to the opposite sex. Now we
have 'gay marriage' meaning 'happy' marriage. Why not, since the 'fad'
is arbitrarily redefining things to suit our purpose.

What an 'idiot'.

I hope all business 'marriages' are 'male' 'female'.

"LOL"

[Patrick Turner]

On Aug 28, 7:51*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ain't it remarkable how much hate there is directed at gays and their
"defectiveness".

Unfortunately the hate always seems to sound like an extension of
Hitler's Final Solution. The would be idiotic unjust genetic
manipulators will try to suggest anyone found to be carrying all sorts
of "defective genes" should be killed in the womb or sterilised if
they make it alive out of the womb.

Truth be known there have been some fablulously rich contributions to
civilisations from gay folks.

The world cannot keep increasing its population ad-infinitum because
there just ain't enough resources to supply their much increasing
demand for a standard of living equal or better than that of the
averagte overweight hetero-sexual north american who uses too much,
spends too much, and is technically a disaster for the planet due to
his breeding of more like him/herself.

In future there will indeed be genetic manipulation available for
those who can pay for it, and perhaps gays who become wealthy enough
because other folks have so agreeably traded with them will be able
to ensure their prosperous gene and socially advantageous MIX of genes
can be passed on, but short of cloning themselves.

In fact we have not much idea whatever will be available by choice in
September, 3010, apart from what seems obvious, genetic tailoring for
almost any features you want. One useful one would be the ability to
breathe in CO2 and breathe out oxygen like plants. Eating our own ****
would be another.

I had a cousin who was gay. His brother and sister were straight.
Anyway, my cousin died of aids and got it before the cause of the
disease was known. He was a fine man, and lived with a partner for
many years, and I don't know if the partner is still alive. Both
earned more than average and paid high taxes, without all the rebates
and deductions to taxable incomes available to parents.

So just how would genetic spread of gayness be prevented? Seems it is
a random genetic event - to me it matters not that a small percentage
of the population is gay. They make a net positive contribution to
society, and to suggest they be somehow be culled is ethical garbage
behaviour. I've heard the religious nut cases suggest aids is God's
punishment for the "abomination" of being gay but what if some disease
had spread mainly amoung straight ppl? But of course many diseases
spread amoung everyone, and there is no justification why the
religiously devout and pious folk with exemplary morals be stricken
down with all sorts of ailments. Some ****ing God these god botherers
believe in!

I personally have never enjoyed anal sex and sucking cock but there
are men who much enjoy this. Are they any worse than women who like
being ****ed up the arse? or who suck clitorises? Whatever other
people do sexually and consenually don't bother me and it all ain't an
abomination at all. When we compare the other real abominations that
abound amoung the rest of society which is mainly straight then the
consensual loving sex between any gays is of no concern. Is there a
gene for peadopfilia? or one for shooting your neighbour to solve a
dispute? one for driving dangerously? I'd rather see many other
negative genetic traits in people be consenually removed by any
intending parents if it can be done ethically before removing gay
genes if that were even possible at all. Before eliminating gay genes,
perhaps much genetic alteration could be argued for most of those
around you and to you who are reading this message. If I am alive
when the Genetic Police are patrolling in a suburb near you, I'll be
hiding in the bushes with a shottie, and gladly take out such ****s in
the name of freedom. But I doubt progress to this will occur because
the genetic choice will become purchassable and a genetically advanced
child will be cherished even if he or she has gayness and there would
be no need for genetic control to be imposed unwillingly by Big
Brother because Private Enterprize will do it as well as it does 1,001
other things that can't happen in a top-down command-control socialist
state.

People may not like the future, but one thing is certain, a future
will happen.

Patrick Turner.