A simple reason why faggot marriages should be legal If the faggots marry each other, they won't be forced by the society to marry women and procreate. If they don't procreate, the homosexulity gene(s) will be taken out of the genepool, and homos will be no more. What do you think?
28 comments
Well, current scientific opinion has it that homosexuality is an inborn trait, which would mean that it is genetically determined.anyone to get married to anybody (or even to any specific type of person), and the poster's whole viewpoint here is driven by bigotry, the idea of breeding out a putative recessive gene seems reasonably sound -- just impractical, as well as outlandishly paranoid in its conception.
Of course, the poster probably would choke if he had any clue how many generations that would take, even if gays stopped directly contributing to the gene pool worldwide right away!
~David D.G.
Homosexuality occurs in most mammals at a rate of about 1%, but in humans at a rate that's hard to estimate, probably at least 5% (that's the percentage of openly gay voters in Britain). This is probably partly due to gays historically being forced to procreate, which is very ironic.
Messiah - that's utter bullcrap! Care to cite a fictitious or ignorant study to go with your fictitious or ignorant "statistics"? Mammals do not have a base level of 'deviation'. It's not a deoxyribonucleic mutation, it's far more predominant in species with social groups than solitary animals that pair up to mate.
Julian, I really don't want to get into an argument here, as I assume we are both supporters of gay rights. I have a degree in biology and psychology, which gives me some background in the issues, but I shouldn't have relied on my memory. Next time I post something scientific I'll attempt to provide references. You should too.
Well, current scientific opinion has it that homosexuality is an inborn trait,
Yes.
which would mean that it is genetically determined.
No, not really. Not everything biological is genetic; the prenatal hormonal profile, for instance, can have significant effects on a developing organism; these affect traits which are "inborn", but not genetic.
Actually, this may end up being significant in terms of the importance of non-procreative sex in social animals such as humans.
It's unlikely to be due to just one gene or just genes by themselves. More likely it's due to a number of factors, including sheer randomness (Butterfly Effect).
Also, even though Scorpio doesn't mention bisexuals I assume he wants to get rid of that too. Studies of fruit flies shows bisexuality is linked to having less extracellular glutamate. The less extracellular glutamate you have the stronger your synapses are. This causes the brain to miss a lot of the minute details people usually unconsciously pick up (such as the different between male and female pheromones), since the information is just moving to fast to tell the difference. However, strong synapses are generally a good thing as far as intelligence goes, so if you want to eliminate bisexuality you're going to have to drag the human race backwards in evolution.
Fine, we'll take it. So long as I get the rights and the title.
Why can't more fundies just wish us into an evolution based death spiral. (FUN FACT: Bisexuals will still live on... We are immortal.)
No, no, no, Scorpio. You're headed in the right direction there, but to REALLY get us to like you, you'll have to leave the crazy outside.
How many homosexual men do you currently see in forced marriages with forced families (at least here in America, although many homosexual men in other countries have been known to marry and raise families due to societal pressures)?
Secondly, gay couples do not necessarily mean childfree couples. Ever heard of egg donors and gestational surrogates, Scorpio?
Nice try, though.
Okay, so he admits it's not a choice, but then the rest of it is all ass-hattery...so, I don't know what to think...
IIRC, women who are related to gay men on the gay men's mother's side of the family tend to have more children than women generally (or women on the father's side of gay men's families). This would indicate a gene or heritable trait which contributes to women's desire or ability to have children and contributes to men's attraction to other men. There's also a pattern where the more older brothers (and only brothers) a man has by the same mother (and only mother), the more likely he is to be gay. This would suggest a non -genetic component as well.
Basically, despite the pop-evo-psych attitude that every specific human behavior must be hard-wired and coded in DNA, human brains and bodies are wildly complex and can turn out differently based on combinations of details so small as to be effectively random.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
