7th February 2004, 4:22 PM
A Black Falcon Wrote:Irregardless of what you think of them personally, your positions mean that you do and you are.
Wrong. Not believing they are at the mercy of forces beyond their control is not hating gays. Nor does your believing that they are and they deserve special rights and priveleges mean you love or like them.
My problem is not with gay people, but with gay people forcing me to accept what they do as acceptable and right. If you haven't realized yet, I believe acceptance should happen in natural course, and not be forced upon people who disagree with it, no matter what the subject is. I do not like the idea of being forced to accept gays anymore than I would like the idea of having a religious belief forced upon me, even if it were one I believed already.
Quote:So sad... but is there any point in repeating what I have said ten times before?
Don't. You obviously do not have even a basic grasp on genetics and biology, so doing so would waste my time and tarnish your dignity. Don't bother.
Quote:For one thing you miss the point of my example. Greco-Roman tradition had a thing with older men and young boys. Then later the boys would marry... so clearly they were not homosexual (in the vast majority I mean). This is an example of just cultural homosexuality... you would get used to it and (given how the brain can do all kinds of funny things) get used to it, but was it genetically what they were predisposed to? No. That is a different kind of homosexuality -- homosexual acts, but not actual homosexuality. That requires genetics.
When their decendants stopped teaching people the practice it naturally died out, like all ideas do when people stop doing them.
It just proves that homosexuality is hardly some new or unnatural thing. It is very natural and throughout history people have had it. As for passing it on, that is a good question. Clearly in the past most people who were homosexuals had to live as heterosexuals so the question is mostly answered like that. And also, it clearly is not a trait that requires a homosexual parent -- many, many people who are homosexual do not have homosexual parents. So I don't know what it is, but it's not something that requires your parents to have it for you to have it as well... so your "point" about it dying out is wrong. You don't have to be homosexual to have homosexual children and the entire animal kingdom proves that absolutely.
You so deftly demonstrate your complete ignorance of genetics with this statement:
Quote:So I don't know what it is, but it's not something that requires your parents to have it for you to have it as well... so your "point" about it dying out is wrong. You don't have to be homosexual to have homosexual children and the entire animal kingdom proves that absolutely.
If you did know anything about genetics, you would know that almost all of your genetic makeup is determined by your ancestry. Therefore, it doesn't have to merely be a parent, but some ancestor MUST have this trait, unless it's a mutation, and there's no possible way homosexuality is a genetic mutation, as mutations are responses. They don't happen without a reason. And such mutations would be very rare, and impossible among such a wide number of people. Homosexuality is fairly widespread, and there's no way something so widespread could be genetic unless it were an inherited trait, which obviously homosexuality is not. And yet again, genetics has absolutely no explanation for bisexuality.
You don't have to be homosexual to have homosexual children because homosexuality is not a genetic trait. It is environmental. There are no conclusive (few anywhere even claiming such) scientific studies linking homosexuality to genetics.Again, the damn article you posted said as much. So I don't get what you're trying to prove here.
Your argument is so flawed. It's probably the worst of any you've ever submitted in anything we debate. It lacks any scientific proof. Again, as I predicted, you think you're right because you don't understand even the basics of genetics. The mapping of the human genome is more than 90% complete, and no so-called 'gay gene' has been found yet. The clock is ticking, and before long I'll be vindicated.
Sadly enough, when that day comes, people like you will still refuse to accept it.
Quote:Yes, you could live unhappily in a heterosexual relationship, but make no mistake -- you would not be happy. You just don't understand this concept... they do not choose anything. They just know who they are attracted to, and it isn't the same gender. Same deal for transsexuals... strange group that is true, but they aren't happy as the gender they were born in... some biological thing is not the same as most people, in each of these cases. What? I don't know. But there is something. We'll have to wait for more genetic evidence before we can begin to really nail it down though...
How can you say you can't be happy? Do you have personal experience? Or do you listen to the gay people who say this? Are there any gay people who are in heterosexual relationships who remain in them and claim to be happy? No, no one ever says this, because few 'gay' people in a heterosexual relationship would consider themselves truly gay if their heterosexual relationship were healthy and happy. So who knows how many who think they are gay don't live the lifestyle? How would you know this? You're making a stupid assumption.
Again, if you won't take the time to at least learn how genetic traits are passed and recieved, don't bother anymore. And don't demonize me because I believe they have a say in their lifestyle. I know I do. People do a lot of things that don't make them happy, that doesn't mean they're genetically predisposed against doing them. That's your entire argument in a nutshell and it makes no sense whatsoever. Alcoholics, or addicts of any sort, are generally unhappy people, who can change their lifestyle but often don't. That doesn't mean their addictions are genetic.
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR