There is no Homo Gene by 6ixStringJack

I'm not an expert on homosexuality (and certainly not as much of an expert as 6ix apparently is) but I remember hearing about a study a while back which showed that women who have multiple male children are more likely to have gay sons. This isn't a linear increase (2 sons = twice as likely) but something a bit higher (2 sons = 2.5 times as likely for instance). I can't remember where I heard it but if it's true then the continued existence of the "gay gene" may be result of genetic tendencies of the mother more than the sons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:59 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi Frem

The study was quite limited. They removed the gene that allowed the rodents to smell "cat smell". When they removed the gene they eliminated the fear. So they concluded that "cat smell" is a genetic hard-wired trigger for fear. And that the fear has nothing to do with learning or experience.

But in broader terms, they've shown that a "psychological response" is completely genetic.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:10 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

There have been some excellent books about the pervasiveness of homosexuality in the animal kingdom (though I'd have to look up the titles).

The people homosexuals I know didn't just one day 'choose' which sex they were attracted to. And I don't think the animals got up one day and said 'you know, I have a choice and today I'll be homosexual'. If there was ever a reason to consider that homosexuality might be biologically driven, homosexuality in the animal world would be it. (The other animals besides us that is, as we are also animals.)

I think of it as being like handedness. Most people are strongly right handed, some are strongly left-handed, and a few are amidexterous. You may learn to use the non-preferred hand, but it doesn't change the preference which seems to develop early in life.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:28 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/13/japan.mouse.ap/index.html

Using genetic engineering, scientists at Tokyo University say they have successfully switched off the rodents' instinct to cower at the smell or presence of cats -- showing that fear is genetically hardwired and not learned through experience, as commonly believed.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Bull shit. Mammals and most fish fear the unknown...mostly due to smell and size.

example: If you were to ever take your head out of your ass and smell a rose...you would probably spend the next 17 minutes cowering in the nearest corner, twitching like a broken vibrator, all while defecating all over your penny-loafers......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I'm not an expert on homosexuality (and certainly not as much of an expert as 6ix apparently is) but I remember hearing about a study a while back which showed that women who have multiple male children are more likely to have gay sons. This isn't a linear increase (2 sons = twice as likely) but something a bit higher (2 sons = 2.5 times as likely for instance). I can't remember where I heard it but if it's true then the continued existence of the "gay gene" may be result of genetic tendencies of the mother more than the sons.

Any reason to assume the correlation is due to genetics? I mean, it could be a result of two boys growing up in the same household. "You show me yours," etc.

I'm just saying...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:35 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I don't see any difference between sexual orientation and sexual fetishes. Seem exactly the same to me.

meh... whatever gets you off.

Okay, so by your reckoning, your fetishes ARE your orientation, correct? So, say, if you have a fetish for stiletto heels (I've never really gotten how that particular fetish works, but apparently it's a very popular one, so who am I to argue?), then it doesn't matter to you whether it's a man or a woman in those stilettoes?

Your ORIENTATION is about WHO you are attracted to - man, woman, or both (bisexual). Your FETISHES are more about WHAT about that person turns you on the most. I say I like women, but that's not the end of the story. It doesn't mean I'll have sex with just ANY woman - I have my particular *types* of women that turn me on more - and within that group, there will be some who are more right for me than others.

If you're so sure that being gay is a choice, allow me to ask: When and how did you choose your sexual orientation? Saying that being gay is a choice is, ipso facto, also saying that being straight is a choice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 10:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Well, I was thinking back to 'primitive' cultures, but I suppose the 'nursery gene' could predate such cultures, perhaps down to our apelike ancestors? I have no idea how apes function.

Given it's prevelance, I'd have thought it could go back further than that.

Quote:
The problem I was seeing was this... in the animal world, I don't recall ever hearing of homosexual child-minding groups. One of the parents usually watches the kids. And in human cultures... the old-time Native Americans are a good example - I don't remember hearing about homosexual child-minding groups either.

Yeah, I doubt it's some ingrained rigid thing like that in Human society, it would have to be cultural to get that. I'm not suggesting that it's WHY homosexuality developed, theres no ryhme nor reason to Evolution, just that it could offer advantages to the species that would mean it would continue to be prevailent.
Gay Animals are Common
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=3555

Quote:
One puzzling question is why homosexuality arises in certain members of a species. It can't be strictly genetic or it would die out, since homosexuals don't reproduce often enough for the gene to be passed on. Once society gets over the idea that homosexuality is unnatural, the next question is: What role does it play? It could be a response to overpopulation. Biologist Marlene Zuk thinks that by not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young and, "That is a contribution to the gene pool." They could also be agents for carrying on the culture, while heterosexuals are busy reproducing and raising the young—a role they play in human society.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 10:16 AM

CHRISISALL

Straight; not just a choice, but an option.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Any reason to assume the correlation is due to genetics? I mean, it could be a result of two boys growing up in the same household. "You show me yours," etc.

IIRC the authors of the study didn't make any guesses as to the why of the results, though if it's genetic that certainly fits the data.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 10:19 AM

Oh, and since this thread has taken over for the old one, anyone jumping in and wondering what kicked this off, here's the link.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/071209-fly-genes.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 10:39 AM

ROCKETJOCK

My usual response when people claim that sexual preference is a choice is to ask them when they realized they were attracted to their own gender.

Generally, they protest that they are not, that they are only attracted to the opposite sex.

I then point out that, if the reason they choose not to have gay relationships is is that they are not attracted to those of their own gender, that they haven't actually made a choice.

They generally get very testy at this point, and either change the subject, or accuse me of being a closet gay. Which my wife and daughter find very amusing.

Bravely choosing not to do something you're not tempted to do anyway isn't exactly a sign of high virtue.

"Some people juggle geese." -- Hoban Washburn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Any reason to assume the correlation is due to genetics? I mean, it could be a result of two boys growing up in the same household. "You show me yours," etc.
IIRC the authors of the study didn't make any guesses as to the why of the results, though if it's genetic that certainly fits the data.

If it's boys "turning gay" because they grew up staring at their brother's ding-a-lings, that fits the data just fine too.

Really, I'd have to read the article, but I'm not at all seeing how this could tie to the mother's DNA.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
If it's boys "turning gay" because they grew up staring at their brother's ding-a-lings, that fits the data just fine too.

Really, I'd have to read the article, but I'm not at all seeing how this could tie to the mother's DNA.

How about "people don't turn gay by looking at penises"?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:47 PM

Cit, do you have data to support this? Have you spend a lot of time staring at penises? Maybe that's why you're not gay...

Hey, kids experiment, sometimes on whatever's handy. (I so didn't mean that literally...) My point is, without having read the article, I'm not sure why this statistic is being attributed to genetics. I've actually known plenty of people who experimented with siblings and cousins, and I think my theory is as likely, or more likely, than the genetic thing.

Oh hey - and it's the man who gives up the Y chromosome, so if it was genetic, it's be his DNA carrying the hypothetical gay gene...

Whatever, I still think it's a silly conclusion, and not nearly as simple as that.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Cit, do you have data to support this? Have you spend a lot of time staring at penises? Maybe that's why you're not gay...

I've spent a great deal of time playing with one...

Quote:

Oh hey - and it's the man who gives up the Y chromosome, so if it was genetic, it's be his DNA carrying the hypothetical gay gene...

Unless it's on the X...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
My point is, without having read the article, I'm not sure why this statistic is being attributed to genetics.

The article about the number of gay children being related to the number of male children did not IIRC attribute it to genetics, rather it said (again, IIRC) that the cause was not known.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:24 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Unless it's on the X... " OOOhh --- just like hemophilia and a few other conditions.

***************************************************************
Oh yeah, and though it looks similar, hemophilia is a word NOT related to homo- anything.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:54 PM

CAUSAL

All this is just asking for someone to call "naturalistic fallacy."

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Cit, do you have data to support this? Have you spend a lot of time staring at penises? Maybe that's why you're not gay...
I've spent a great deal of time playing with one...

OK, you win. I'm not touching that one! LOL!

Quote:
Unless it's on the X...

If it correlates to having male children, and male children are decided by the Y spermies getting to the egg first... you do the math.

Which reminds me, I once heard it hypothesized (by a man) that baby gender really can be blamed on the female, (ie in cultures when girl children are not wanted and mothers are blamed for not having boys) since that big, bad, thick-walled egg is the one deciding which sperm gets through...

That's right. Everything's our fault.

Shamed, submissive, and off topic once again,
- mal4prez

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 2:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
All this is just asking for someone to call "naturalistic fallacy."

People want to dismiss homosexuality as wrong because it's unnatural, so whether it's natural or not is a central theme.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
If it correlates to having male children, and male children are decided by the Y spermies getting to the egg first... you do the math.

Women can be homosexual too, though Queen Victoria found the prospect quite 'unamusing'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
If it correlates to having male children, and male children are decided by the Y spermies getting to the egg first... you do the math.
Women can be homosexual too, though Queen Victoria found the prospect quite 'unamusing'.

I was taking the original post to refer to gay men, since there was the whole son issue... my mistake if it was two-gender-inclusive.

Because, as we all know, gay women aren't near as disturbing to society as gay men. Two chicks is "hot" and two men is "unnatural."

(I'm totally being snarky, please don't take this as an invitation for serious debate...)

Oh - and Queen Victoria? Good lord, what a great line!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
One more thing for Jack - I find it disturbing that you suggest that homosexuality is a condition requiring blame or very least a statement of responsility. There is no victim. Pedophilia has a victim. Beastiality has a victim. (I can't imagine that the sheep likes it...) The latter do not in any way compare to homosexuality.

I'm not the one saying that. The gays are jumping all over that one and saying that it is their genetics that makes them that way.

As for beastiality, to listen to the sheep-bangers talk the animals love it too. And 18 years as the age of conscent is a recent phenomena as far as pedophilia goes. These are today's societial norms, which some states in America today don't even go by. Look at the age of conscent in Japan. I'm not saying it's right, but before Lifetime movies and the women's lib movement, I'm pretty sure that this was a common occurance as well and that those who partook would argue that there was no victim in those cases either. (of course I mean where there was no physical abuse involved, because bruises speak very loudly for themselves).

Nope... not seeing much of a difference here, except for how society judges the three differently today.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
So you believe that homosexuals may possess some species-needed talent or trait, and that is why they keep surfacing in nature?
There's numerous examples in nature of how non-breeding couples are useful for child rearing. Today we have childminders and Nurseries, but Homosexual non-breeding couples could be the natural equivelent. There's evidence of homosexuals in many social species.

Well they ain't going near my children. And that especially goes for Michael Jackson...

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But in broader terms, they've shown that a "psychological response" is completely genetic.

Don't tell that to L. Ron Hubbard, Tom Cruise or John Travolta.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There have been some excellent books about the pervasiveness of homosexuality in the animal kingdom (though I'd have to look up the titles).

The people homosexuals I know didn't just one day 'choose' which sex they were attracted to. And I don't think the animals got up one day and said 'you know, I have a choice and today I'll be homosexual'. If there was ever a reason to consider that homosexuality might be biologically driven, homosexuality in the animal world would be it. (The other animals besides us that is, as we are also animals.)

I think of it as being like handedness. Most people are strongly right handed, some are strongly left-handed, and a few are amidexterous. You may learn to use the non-preferred hand, but it doesn't change the preference which seems to develop early in life.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

I find it amusing that since I dont' agree with people on this issue, they keep going back to the "woke up one day and decided I'd be gay" theory. I never said that. I belive there is a lot of factors at play and to blame a gene alone is rediculous and a cop out.

Stop being obtuse.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 6:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm not the one saying that. The gays are jumping all over that one and saying that it is their genetics that makes them that way.

Really? All I see is scientists with one vague study, and you jumping to all kinds of conclusions...

Perhaps all those "evil gays" in your life are saying that they are what they are and are gonna be what they are with or without your consent. Does that make you feel powerless or something? I mean, really, what is your damage with it?

Quote:
As for beastiality, to listen to the sheep-bangers talk the animals love it too.

We both know that's a big whatever. Ditto with age of consent. But that's not the argument here.

Homosexuality==no victim

Do you dispute this?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 6:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Really? All I see is scientists with one vague study, and you jumping to all kinds of conclusions...

Perhaps all those "evil gays" in your life are saying that they are what they are and are gonna be what they are with or without your consent. Does that make you feel powerless or something? I mean, really, what is your damage with it?

Obtuse obtuse obtuse......

Never said anything about anyone being evil. I don't want people judging my smoking and just leave me the fuck alone about it, so I give them the same respect. I just don't want anybody blaming their actions on predetermination, whether it's religious or scientific. Are you deliberatly being obtuse, or is that hereditary in your family?

Quote:
6SJ - As for beastiality, to listen to the sheep-bangers talk the animals love it too.

Quote:
Mal4prez - We both know that's a big whatever. Ditto with age of consent. But that's not the argument here.

Homosexuality==no victim

Do you dispute this?

I disagree with your dismissal. My point is a valid one. This is about societal perceptions of these things, today. Just like people argue in favor of homosexuality, today, they argue against beastiality, today. But it wasn't 30 or 40 years ago where nobody stood up for homosexuality and it was treated exactly as beastiality today is concerned.

(EDITED TO ADD: And given proper testing methods to make certain that the animals were not suffering from physical ailments, as gross as it sounds, I really don't think you would have any argument against the practice.)

So.... don't dismiss my statement because it is a very valid one.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 6:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Really? All I see is scientists with one vague study, and you jumping to all kinds of conclusions...

Perhaps all those "evil gays" in your life are saying that they are what they are and are gonna be what they are with or without your consent. Does that make you feel powerless or something? I mean, really, what is your damage with it?
Obtuse obtuse obtuse......

Never said anything about anyone being evil. I don't want people judging my smoking and just leave me the fuck alone about it, so I give them the same respect. I just don't want anybody blaming their actions on predetermination, whether it's religious or scientific. Are you deliberatly being obtuse, or is that hereditary in your family?

Careful with the claws darlin', I'm tender...

You've got strong feelings, huh? Take it easy. Have a smoke. Smoke something stronger if it helps.

Again, I think you're the one stuck with the whole pre-determined thing. Gay folks simply are what they are, same as you. They're not trying to escape blame or shoulder off responsibility, because that just isn't an issue. There is no blame. There is no responsibility. What they do hurts no one. It doesn't even give them cancer, as your smoking may do to you.

Honestly, I'm having a really hard time understanding why this bothers you so much that you'll call me names over it. Do you really need to villify me, rather than talk sensibly?

Quote:
Quote:
We both know that's a big whatever. Ditto with age of consent. But that's not the argument here.

Homosexuality==no victim

Do you dispute this?
I disagree with your dismissal.

And yet, you don't answer the question. Hmm. Have you been taking Rap's debating techniques to heart? Cause what I'm getting out your posts is a big bunch of emotion, and not a lot of logic.

Let me stress: there is no victim. It harms no one. Maybe if you're equating homosexuality and pedophilia - as in all homos prey on children, the popular right wing myth - you see things differently. Myself, I've known a helluva lot of gay folks in my life, and not a one has been into children. They like consenting partners, grown-ups who are self-aware and love them in return, same as how I like my men and, I'm guessing, same as how you like your women. Where's the problem?

Maybe your experience with gay folks has been different. If so, I'm sorry for that. But don't blame some poor schmoe who just wants to live in peace with his boyfriend. And don't waste your time thinking that he's asking your permission or forgiveness or trying to justify himself to you. What he does with his partner has nothing to do with you or anyone else.

[EDITED TO REPLY: Honestly, I find bestiality just gross and don't want to think about it, but if you force the issue... Given the fact that we can't ever know what these poor animals think and don't know how to judge consent from them, I class them the same as children. Their orifices should be left alone. Grown-up gay folks, however, can give consent. Are you seeing the difference here?]

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:21 PM

Sorry mal4prez.... You just happened to be the one I replied to. Reading people's responses in here is like listeing to a broken record. You just happened to be the 5th person to say what I replied to, so you got the spite that came with it. (Usually reserved for Citizen)

My bad....

If homosexuals can be satisfied with being given the right they deserve to have a legal union recognized by the state and NOT attack the church or demand that the government force the church to change its stance on marriage, then no, homosexuals aren't hurting anybody. Also, they need to stop attacking the Boy Scouts for their beliefs as well and just make their own camping organization which can be exclusive to gays or be for everyone in general. I don't believe they should be allowed to raise children either. That isn't fair to a child to decide for them that they are going to have two mothers or two fathers.

You say you can't judge how an animal reacts to beastiality? I would assume it were no different than an animal reacts to any other human/animal interaction. If you abuse a cat physically, for instance, it isn't going to like being around humans, particularly you... while at the same time if you are loving and nurturing to your cat, it will walk up to your legs and rub up against them looking for attention. Here's a lab test for you. Put the sheep-banger in a 10'x10' room with his "partner" and see if it goes apeshit and tries to tear down the wall...

Homosexuality is gross to a lot of folk. Just because you think beastility is gross and wrong doesn't make it so. All I'm doing is taking this point of view to its next logical step.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 11:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
So.... don't dismiss my statement because it is a very valid one.

People were arguing for slavery less than two hundred years ago. It was banned, but that's all. Rich land owners were still allowed to employ people, just not own slaves.

A Slippery Slope fallacy backed by an appeal to tradition isn't a valid argument.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 12:03 AM

I fail to see how that has anything to do with anything Cit. Nice attempt at misdirection again. You're so mysterious. Kudos to you.

Besides, that comment wasn't even directed at you. Have you run out of things to argue with me about, that this is all you have left?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 12:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I fail to see how that has anything to do with anything Cit. Nice attempt at misdirection again. You're so mysterious. Kudos to you.

Not really, it's an analogy, perhaps you've heard of them? Your point isn't valid, it's a logical fallacy. I fail to see what this entire post of yours has to do with anything, save perpetuating the animosity you seem to enjoy so much.

Quote:
Besides, that comment wasn't even directed at you.

You say that like it matters.

Quote:
Have you run out of things to argue with me about, that this is all you have left?

You're the one that scurried away to have the same conversation with someone else when I started to ask some difficult questions Jack, not I.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 1:38 AM

None of your questions are difficult Cit, they're just off topic and a waste of my time, and just a way for you to get your rocks off. I'm seriously convinced that you're masturbating while you write to me. And trust me, I'm very flattered

Here. I have a few questions for you beat off to....

Assuming that the animal doesn't mind, or even enjoys it, is beastiality any worse than homosexuality? I'm not asking by today's political and social envoirnment, but as purely a pleasure with no victim based equation, leaving out any worries of how gross some or most others may find it. Those donkey show donkey's sure seem to enjoy it...

(Again, just another example of how these things seem to be not so bad if a woman is involved...)

Why do you science types, who have so successfully distanced yourself from the pre-determined destiny of God and religion, flock so quickly to another set of ever-changing rules about nature and let them convince you that you have no control and you are who you are because you were born that way?

(Just a glowing example of what I said the preist said years ago that when people don't follow God, they will undoubtedly find something/someone else to follow)

Why do people automatically resort to calling somebody a homophobe when they question the validity of genetics determining sexual preference? It surely seems to me an argument that in today's social climate can never be won. I dub it the "homophobe card"....

(I'm not an evil hater. To each their own. Again.... just saying that people need to own up to their actions and quit trying to pass the buck.)

Hope it was as good for you as it was for me Cit. Can't wait till next time big boy.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 2:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
None of your questions are difficult Cit, they're just off topic and a waste of my time, and just a way for you to get your rocks off. I'm seriously convinced that you're masturbating while you write to me. And trust me, I'm very flattered

Your fantasies are your own, and say nothing about me. My questions were perfectly on topic, but you skip round them because you obviously don't have an answer. Becoming argumentative and insulting is an indication of desperation, and basically proves me right. Thanks

Quote:
Assuming that the animal doesn't mind, or even enjoys it, is beastiality any worse than homosexuality?

Because an animal can't give it's consent. As someone who professes to believe so much about choice, why do you continue to be so obtuse as to deny there’s a difference between having a choice and not? You’re rabid insistence that beastiality and paedophilia are the same as homosexuality; betray homophobia, not any argument about its genetic roots. I’m sorry Jack, I know you like to portray yourself as the lone ranger who sees through society’s façade to the truth, but your not. Being a free thinker doesn’t mean thinking the exact opposite to everyone else and then portraying yourself as a martyr.

Quote:
Why do you science types, who have so successfully distanced yourself from the pre-determined destiny of God and religion, flock so quickly to another set of ever-changing rules about nature and let them convince you that you have no control and you are who you are because you were born that way?

That's certainly a marvellous strawman, but exists no where but inside your own head. Why do you insist on holding no adherence to a religion, while speaking like a Christian Fundamentalist?

Quote:
(Just a glowing example of what I said the preist said years ago that when people don't follow God, they will undoubtedly find something/someone else to follow)

What some priest said is proof against scientists? Well least you're not biased or anything. The priest was wrong, trying to dismiss science as another religion, even though it isn't. He was wrong, and you're wrong to take his say so without question. It's a glowing example of nothing more than you'll take the word of a priest while dismissing the evidence of science.

Quote:
Why do people automatically resort to calling somebody a homophobe when they question the validity of genetics determining sexual preference?

The reasons you may have been called a homophobe isn't because of the genetic question, it's because you imply homosexuality is bad and needs to be blamed on something. Thats a pretty obvious homophobic attitude, it's nothing to do with your stance on its genetic roots. Your words betray a somewhat homophobic mindset, and the fact you want to fantasise about me masturbating betrays some repression there fella.

Quote:
(I'm not an evil hater. To each their own. Again.... just saying that people need to own up to their actions and quit trying to pass the buck.)

Homosexuality being genetic and personal responsibility are two separate issues; your rabid insistence to the contrary has managed to prove nothing, save that you don’t consider anyone else’s opinion worth even listening to, let alone considering.

Quote:
Hope it was as good for you as it was for me Cit. Can't wait till next time big boy. /B]

I'm not involved in your fantasies about me, I just don't think of you that way, sorry.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 2:51 AM

blah blah blah....

That isn't different than any other post you've had on this thread or any other thread you and I get into. Aren't you so bored playing this game Cit?

Why don't you stop talking and just get over here and and give me a kiss big boy.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 2:53 AM

I know I have my own patterns that I'm sure you could point out... but I've noticed that the only time you ever say anything to me is either to a) attack God, or b) defend homosexuality.

It's true.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 3:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
That isn't different than any other post you've had on this thread or any other thread you and I get into. Aren't you so bored playing this game Cit?

Takes two to play a game Jack, though I'm sure as hell not surprised that you won't accept blame your self. Personal responcibility is more than just a mantra to throw at people you disagree with, it's something you actually have to do...

Quote:
I know I have my own patterns that I'm sure you could point out... but I've noticed that the only time you ever say anything to me is either to a) attack God, or b) defend homosexuality.

It's true.

I've never attacked god, and if I have to defend homosexuality when I talk to you, it rather proves my point regarding the homophobia. I'm sure you think you're being terribly clever, but you're actually just proving me right.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 3:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Because an animal can't give it's consent. As someone who professes to believe so much about choice, why do you continue to be so obtuse as to deny there’s a difference between having a choice and not?

How do you know that that sheep-banger isn't the greatest thing to have ever happened to that lonely little sheep? Who are you to deny the sheep that pleasure. You're willing to believe 100% in the power of genetics in same-sex attraction, but you can't even give it 50/50 that the animal just might like it?

And are you telling me that you science folk can split atoms and map our entire genetic structure, but you are unable to tell if an animal or human being is finding a situation pleasurable or not? Talk about obtuse... It's called body language, my man. It's a great tool to help you empathize with other human beings and I feel sorry for you that you don't know how to read it. No wonder you science types have the stereotype of never getting laid....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 3:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I've never attacked god, and if I have to defend homosexuality when I talk to you, it rather proves my point regarding the homophobia. I'm sure you think you're being terribly clever, but you're actually just proving me right.

Welcome to Cits fantasy world everyone, where he can manipulate your words into always proving his point. Citizen... a man who is never wrong about anything and can always fall back on the ever-changing net of science to prove or disprove whatever he wants to at any time. A master of misdirection that even Houdini would have been in awe of. I applaud your ability and the insane amount of love you must have for yourself to know that you are always right about everything.

I believe we have a spot for you here on W. Bush's panel. He needs all the help he can get right now.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 3:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
How do you know that that sheep-banger isn't the greatest thing to have ever happened to that lonely little sheep? Who are you to deny the sheep that pleasure. You're willing to believe 100% in the power of genetics in same-sex attraction, but you can't even give it 50/50 that the animal just might like it?

When a Sheep says yes and consents to sexual activity, you've got something, until then you need to read a dictionary to find out what the word Obtuse actually means

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Welcome to Cits fantasy world everyone, where he can manipulate your words into always proving his point. Citizen... a man who is never wrong about anything and can always fall back on the ever-changing net of science to prove or disprove whatever he wants to at any time. A master of misdirection that even Houdini would have been in awe of. I applaud your ability and the insane amount of love you must have for yourself to know that you are always right about everything.

I've engaged in debate with people; I've listened to what others say. You, on the other hand, have made wild accusations and insulted anyone you disagree with. The very opening line of this thread eloquently demonstrates that the only person here who constantly believes himself right, is you. You lack even the basic respect to listen to another person’s point of view, let alone consider it; your posts amount to nothing more than sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "Shut up! You’re stupid I'm not listening".

Perhaps one day you'll grow as a Human being to the point of respecting other people and their rights, rather than bitching constantly about your own, but not today. It’s a sad fact that the people who protest most about their rights care the least for others, something you unfortunately embody. Well I'm done with you, your flaky argument has fallen apart and you're now concentrating on trying to spark a flame war in order to cover your withdrawal, unfortunately for you I am in no mood to enable you immature behaviour, troll away Jack, troll away.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 3:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Sorry mal4prez.... You just happened to be the one I replied to. Reading people's responses in here is like listeing to a broken record. You just happened to be the 5th person to say what I replied to, so you got the spite that came with it. (Usually reserved for Citizen)

My bad....

Yeah, just chill out OK? You have to seen enough of Rap and Hero to know that cutting loose like you did just makes you sound like an ass. It doesn't win anyone to your side, and doesn't make for a fun debate.

Maybe people keep repeating themselves to you because you're not listening and responding to what they say, hmm?

Quote:
If homosexuals can be satisfied with being given the right they deserve to have a legal union recognized by the state and NOT attack the church or demand that the government force the church to change its stance on marriage, then no, homosexuals aren't hurting anybody.

Shame on you - again going into the Rap style of debate.

Seriously, when did marriage and religion came into this?

OK, since you bring it up, let's clarify... My personal belief is that no one should have a legal right to marry. Everyone (of age) should have the legal right to a civil union with whoever they choose (of age), and all financial and legal benefits go with that. Marriage - the act of joining before the god of your choice - should be a completely separate thing which each couple and each church works out on their own, seperate from the law and all legal benefits.

So, we don't disagree. Let's lay down the rule that by saying gays having a right to live as gays, we're not talking about religion. OK?

Quote:
You say you can't judge how an animal reacts to beastiality?

Somehow, I knew you're were going to respond this way, and that you'd jump on my "gross" statement... Can you not just answer the basic question of consent?

It's not purely about physical harm. A child molester can get a child to physically enjoy the act, to see it as love, and the victimized child shut in a 10x10 room with the molester may very well cuddle up, even initiate as they've been trained to do. They don't know better. But once they're grown up they begin understand what happened them, and see the harm. Hypersexuality, avoidance of sex, emotional problems, etc...

Read carefully here: a child, like an animal, is not mentally capable of giving consent. If a woman hits on me tonight and I like her, I can choose to give consent.

Which ties into someting I feel you'd agree with: the ultimate law of my life, the way I think the world should be, is that everyone is free to do as they will as long as it doesn't impede anyone else's rights. Let's break that down...

Homosexuality -> consent is given -> everyone involved has freedom of choice -> A-OK!

Pedophila -> no consent is possible -> child has no freedom of choice -> Bad!

Beastiality -> no consent is possible -> animal has no freedom of choice -> Bad!

Do you disagree with this? If so, can you explain without changing the subject?

As to gays raising children... I get that you would not choose to have gay parents, that you are squicked by that. Now, I was raised by a very straight M/F couple - a drunk and a borderline personality. I'd have done much better with a gay couple who were sane. Do I get to choose that?

You seem to continue to see this cloud of damage to all that follows gays everywhere, even after you admit that they harm no one. Where is the damage in gay parenting? Do you think they can't help but molest? Do you think that children will grow extra legs or something? What's up?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 3:54 AM

Quote:
....until then you need to read a dictionary to find out what the word Obtuse actually means .

Obtuse

1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.

LOL... I don't have any problem with labeling you obtuse Cit.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 5:04 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Beastiality -> no consent is possible -> animal has no freedom of choice -> Bad!

Do sheep kick?

Justaquestionisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 5:16 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Are we honestly debating the merits and flaws of bestiality?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 5:16 AM