frederic38
Hall of Famer
i meant human races
Homosexual football player and evolution discussion
- Thread starter bearclaw500
- Start date
- Status
i meant human races
Bk21
Guru
to understand why blacks and whites (asians, etc..) are all called homo sapiens (same race), you have to go to the definition of "race" in french or "breed" - that's why scientists put all humans in the same race: if a black and a white mate, they give a viable child. But that doesn't mean that there is no differences WITHIN a race, that makes what we now call "race" in day-to-day language
Anak
Mentor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 771
Yeah, you're being fooled by those with a political agenda. Neanderthal and homo sapien bred, are they the same race? A good chunk of your DNA is from Neanderthal extract. Neanderthal should be homo sapien, no such thing as a homo neanderthalensis! Right?
Homo erectus would easily be able to breed with modern humans, that means "homo sapien" is incredibly older because there's only one race, the human race, and they'd be a part of it.
Your equal.
Wes Woodhead
Mentor
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,104
Evolutionism is a pagan religion. The main two gods in evolutionism are father time, and mother earth. Professors are the high priests of this religion. Atheism is the mechanism for avoiding the fear of death.
Bk21
Guru
Yeah, you're being fooled by those with a political agenda. Neanderthal and homo sapien bred, are they the same race? A good chunk of your DNA is from Neanderthal extract. Neanderthal should be homo sapien, no such thing as a homo neanderthalensis! Right?
Homo erectus would easily be able to breed with modern humans, that means "homo sapien" is incredibly older because there's only one race, the human race, and they'd be a part of it.
Your equal.
it seems that the neanderthal man has been "absorbed" in the european genetic pool.. in a continuous line of evolution there is no clear frontier between different races, two pools of the same animals can start separating but not long enough in time to form two completely separate species.. ppl who stayed in Africa started evolving in an other way than those who went to Europe (regarding different conditions), but maybe not long enough to make them separate.
I didn't quite understand your point, if you want to point out some references (in private message) I'll be glad to take a look at and discuss it
Last edited:
Bk21
Guru
Nothing is more pagan than christianity, but this is a whole other story..
when you have a huge amount of PROOFS pointing toward evolution, it's no longer a mere hypothesis! even the Vatican was forced to approve Evolution:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...olution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html#
It's kinda Evolution supervised by God, but no serious person can look objectively at the truth and still deny it!
zooloy, biology, genetics, geology etc.. thousands of proofs, but still some want to say that it is a "religion" of its own (because some US church apologists are spreading this idea among their lambs). The sole genetic proof should've knocked it of for good, but the minds of some are so stiff they are unable to get rid of the forbidden fruit, the arch of Noa, and the talking snake..
If you still want to think that it is a religion it is up to you, but nonetheless, 100% of creationists evolved from other beings
you meant "Religion" right? it's the one who promises eternal life
Last edited:
Carolina Speed
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,876
Bk21 you keep mentioning religion as untrue and or pagan, but I'm Christian and Christianity is not religion. Contrary to what you think you might or might not know about evolution, you have yet to explain religion or Christianity to us.
If you're going to compare the two, don't you think you should understand both sides of the argument?
Tell me Bk 21, what do you think religion is and what do you think Christianity is?
How do you know for a fact there's no eternal life?
Here's a thought. Why don't you start a new thread? Evolution and Religion (as you call it) and or Christianity.
I'll be glad to reply what I believe and why I believe it, although I don't expect win any arguments, because most who believe in evolution think they know everything as evidenced by your prior posts, and no man no matter how intelligent they think they are knows everything!
Bk21
Guru
Ok it's a good idea, why not
But I'll let you start the thread if you're ok, and explain also in preamble why Christianity is not religion (did you meant it's not like any other religion or it's not a religion at all)
BTW I'm open to both sides argument, don't have a priori (I myself was a beleiver), but very closed to epidermic un-argumented attacks.
see you there and put a link here plz
Hey another evolution vs. Christianity thread, that'll be fun!!
Anyway back to our sodomite linebacker...
BK21's assertion that anti-homosexual sentiment is religion driven in america is not only wrong it's absurd. The vast majority of Christian denominations in this country and their members are extremely supportive of the "gay agenda" by appointing gay clergy, blessing gay marriages, and completely ignoring the bible's prohibitions on their actions.
With the exception of conservative Christians, over-represented on this site as compared to the population at large, there is no one in america more queer friendly then Christians. If you were to consider the issue world wide the area of the globe that was once defined as "Christiandom" ie Europe and it's other White settled areas like the US, Canada, Austrialia, are practically the only areas where homosexuality is not heavily persecuted often to the point of a death sentence in the other areas.
Furthermore virtually all Christians I have ever known, and this includes conservative Christians, for the most part treat homosexuality basically as they do fornication and eating the meat of cloven hoof animals, in other words it is a sin and they can be forgiven as with any other sinner. Judgement is the role of God and you are to hate the sin and love the sinner.
In my experience the most virulent anti-homosexual sentiment is expressed by atheists or those with no religious affiliation or sentiment. Those guys and I know plenty, young and old, despise gays and refer to them as filth, dirt, scum, and their actions as sick, demented, perveted, repulsive, sickening, etc. To the anti-gay atheist there is no forgiving, no possible redemption. Gays are just sick freaks that deserve whatever poor treatment comes their way.
For BK21 to make the straw man argument that anti-gay sentiment is driven by a few Old Testament (jewish by the way) passages and that "scientific" minds think differently is to misrepresent the arguement and just serves as a convinient weapon to attack religious people.
The actual fact is that a natural ingrained "evolutionary" repulsion at sickening and disgusting behavior is what really drives anti-gay sentiment. Check the science on that.
Anyway back to our sodomite linebacker...
BK21's assertion that anti-homosexual sentiment is religion driven in america is not only wrong it's absurd. The vast majority of Christian denominations in this country and their members are extremely supportive of the "gay agenda" by appointing gay clergy, blessing gay marriages, and completely ignoring the bible's prohibitions on their actions.
With the exception of conservative Christians, over-represented on this site as compared to the population at large, there is no one in america more queer friendly then Christians. If you were to consider the issue world wide the area of the globe that was once defined as "Christiandom" ie Europe and it's other White settled areas like the US, Canada, Austrialia, are practically the only areas where homosexuality is not heavily persecuted often to the point of a death sentence in the other areas.
Furthermore virtually all Christians I have ever known, and this includes conservative Christians, for the most part treat homosexuality basically as they do fornication and eating the meat of cloven hoof animals, in other words it is a sin and they can be forgiven as with any other sinner. Judgement is the role of God and you are to hate the sin and love the sinner.
In my experience the most virulent anti-homosexual sentiment is expressed by atheists or those with no religious affiliation or sentiment. Those guys and I know plenty, young and old, despise gays and refer to them as filth, dirt, scum, and their actions as sick, demented, perveted, repulsive, sickening, etc. To the anti-gay atheist there is no forgiving, no possible redemption. Gays are just sick freaks that deserve whatever poor treatment comes their way.
For BK21 to make the straw man argument that anti-gay sentiment is driven by a few Old Testament (jewish by the way) passages and that "scientific" minds think differently is to misrepresent the arguement and just serves as a convinient weapon to attack religious people.
The actual fact is that a natural ingrained "evolutionary" repulsion at sickening and disgusting behavior is what really drives anti-gay sentiment. Check the science on that.
Bk21
Guru
There is a huge difference between "christians" and "christianity", christians could be of different influences one of them is religion, but not only; social and "moral zeitgeist" are also present in accepting homosexuals. The accpetance in modern societies is very new and leads to excessive behavior (on both sides) but hopefully it will get normalized with time (maybe we won't live that long to see it happen)
You're right though at the fact that some "atheists" are fierce gay haters: the path one take to atheism influences his further reactions; If there is no "God" to tell them we are all equal lambs of god, they allow themselves to think that blacks are lower creatures (where no real christian accepts that), gays are scum etc.. but it's not the path every atheist take and it's not mine
as for the anti-gay sentiment, sure it's not an "evolutionary" behavior for the simple reason that a gay person is not a threat for reproduction and conquering females like a straight person.
Maybe the friend-with gay behavior was seen as a lack of virility by females so lessening ones chances to mate ; OR like psychologists like to say, that the behavior of the others is a "mirror" of our own self- that's why picturing gay sex act (or just witnessing sissy behavior) makes us so uncomfortable and makes us want to eliminate it
Thus, I don't think there is one truth and one explanation - that's why the debate is so passionate
as for the anti-gay sentiment, sure it's not an "evolutionary" behavior for the simple reason that a gay person is not a threat for reproduction and conquering females like a straight person.
Maybe the friend-with gay behavior was seen as a lack of virility by females so lessening ones chances to mate ; OR like psychologists like to say, that the behavior of the others is a "mirror" of our own self- that's why picturing gay sex act (or just witnessing sissy behavior) makes us so uncomfortable and makes us want to eliminate it
Thus, I don't think there is one truth and one explanation - that's why the debate is so passionate
You need to brush up on your knowledge of evolutiony theory. The primary thinking behind evolution is fitness for reproduction. Clearly if an organism doesn't have any interest in reproduction your genes get weeded out. End of story. If you are going to believe the various fairy tales of evolution such as that complex structures like eyeballs are going to develop on their own in micro small leaps of reproductive selection then a huge freakin' anti-reproduction tendency like not wanting to stick your wang in a v-j is an absolute complete cosmic fail.
Something else must be going on.
And you picked really weak reasons for non gay men to dislike gay men from an evolutionary perspective. Early man did not develop his reproduction tendencies in big city night clubs where he could check a *** off his list of competitors for the existing pool of ovaries. He developed in a highly competitive environement where each male of the tribe was needed to help ensure survival. Any femboys in the hunting party were useless to the group and in fact provided a negative survival ethic as they were inferior hunters, fighters, and breeders. All reasons in the long ago age of development for men to develop a deep and abiding hate of guys that were essentially useless freaks similar to retarded or severely handicapped members.
The fact that Whites (and only Whites) developed a civilization of such surplus that can carry such inferior humans is the reason why they proliferate in our society. White technology has been copied by other peoples and now they too are in the early stages of enjoying the "benefits" of the gay agenda.
Bk21
Guru
femboys like you said were not a threat for mating, that was the only point I developped (in an evolutionary point of view) they were not a threat from that POV and it's not difficult to understand.
now how homosexuality genes made it through the evolutionary chain?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html
you may or may not adhere it's not of a big importance..
now the arguments I posted about why straight may hate gay men where preceded by "MAYBE" which means that it was an attempt to explain on the top of my head but have no scientific study to back it up
as for the eye thing it needs a new thread that I'll start in 2 weeks or so (I don't have a lot of time these days); but there is a lot of studies about eye evolution in particular that you can check out (or not)
FootballDad
Hall of Famer
As I've been busy, I haven't had time to play with this thread at all. From what I've read, it appears that BK21 is advocating that homosexual behavior is a genetic trait, which CANNOT be backed up scientifically, it's part of the Cultural Marxist "tearing down of institutions". A friend of mine recently tackled this for another blog, and rather than rehash what he wrote in different words, I'll just cut and paste my friend Matt's offering:
One of the arguments offered by those in support of homosexuality is that homosexuality is an orientation that people are born with and it has the same moral value as the hair color someone has at birth. The implication is that since they are said to be born gay, then it is normal and morally acceptable. The media seems to support this idea, and it is a common position held to justify the behavior. But there are two problems with this position.
First of all, there are a plethora of studies with conflicting results and conclusions on both sides of the argument. Nevertheless, we could quickly consider studies that deal with identical twins. If genetics determines sexual orientation, then it should be manifested when studying twins who share the exact same genetic information. However, that isn't the case. Consider this...
"...If genetic influence were expressed in these data, MZ twins (monozygotic, or "identical") should have the highest concordance for same-sex erotic preference, and unrelated and half-siblings the lowest. Table 5 is based on pairs in which at least one respondent reports a same-sex romantic attraction (N=527 pairs)...there is no evidence for strong genetic influence on same-sex preference in this sample. Among MZ twins, 6.7 % are concordant. DZ (dizygotic, or "fraternal") twin pairs are 7.2% concordant. Full-siblings are 5.5 % concordant. Clearly, the observed concordance rates do not correspond to degrees of genetic similarity. None of the comparisons between MZ twins and others in table 5 are even remotely significant17. If same-sex romantic attraction has a genetic component, it is massively overwhelmed by other factors. As argued above, it is more likely that any genetic influence, if present, can only be expressed in specific and circumscribed social structures." [underline added] (Opposite sex twins and adolescents same-sex attraction" by Peter Bearman and Hannah Bruckner, Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy, 2001. http://iserp.columbia.edu/content/opposite-sex-twins-and-adolescent-same-sex-attraction.
In addition, genetic information that supports heterosexual attraction is more likely to be passed to offspring than would homosexual genetic information, since homosexual practice does not produce offspring. It would seem, as the study states, that homosexuality is not genetically based. Therefore, homosexuality is a learned behavior and should be called a preference, not an orientation.
Second, if being born gay means that homosexuality is morally acceptable because it is natural to them, then it must also be morally acceptable for those who are born with a tendency to oppose homosexuality. It would mean that "heteros" should not be urged to change their "orientation," nor should they be ridiculed for opposing homosexuality -- since they are born that way. To be consistent, the homosexual community should support homophobia as a natural sexual orientation that they are born with. After all, it would seem more likely that heterosexuality is genetically based since heterosexual behavior produces offspring where homosexual behavior does not. So, heterosexual orientation must be genetically natural, should be supported as a normal behavior, should not be ridiculed, should have civil rights protection, and be promoted in schools and the media. And, homosexuals who accuse heteros of being homophobic should be labeled as heterphobes. Otherwise, the obvious double-standard offered by the homosexual community will once again rear its ugly head.
Furthermore, to carry the excuse that homosexuality is genetically based to its logical conclusion, then men born with a natural attraction to young boys should also be considered as having a legitimate sexual orientation with its accompanying moral propriety. Or, are we to say that only homosexual attraction is genetic and morally good where pedophilia is not? If so, why the double standard? And, to step further into the abyss, what do we do with those who are born with the tendency to lie, covet, hate, and steal? Shouldn't they all be morally acceptable as well, since that is how we are born? If not, why not?
The problem with using genetics as an excuse to justify behavior is that whatever tendency we might be born with must be considered normal. This includes lying, pedophilia, homosexuality, and rape. But, such a logical inference will not be acceptable to the pro-homosexual community because selective statistics and discriminatory reasoning are offered to justify their behavior.
One of the arguments offered by those in support of homosexuality is that homosexuality is an orientation that people are born with and it has the same moral value as the hair color someone has at birth. The implication is that since they are said to be born gay, then it is normal and morally acceptable. The media seems to support this idea, and it is a common position held to justify the behavior. But there are two problems with this position.
First of all, there are a plethora of studies with conflicting results and conclusions on both sides of the argument. Nevertheless, we could quickly consider studies that deal with identical twins. If genetics determines sexual orientation, then it should be manifested when studying twins who share the exact same genetic information. However, that isn't the case. Consider this...
"...If genetic influence were expressed in these data, MZ twins (monozygotic, or "identical") should have the highest concordance for same-sex erotic preference, and unrelated and half-siblings the lowest. Table 5 is based on pairs in which at least one respondent reports a same-sex romantic attraction (N=527 pairs)...there is no evidence for strong genetic influence on same-sex preference in this sample. Among MZ twins, 6.7 % are concordant. DZ (dizygotic, or "fraternal") twin pairs are 7.2% concordant. Full-siblings are 5.5 % concordant. Clearly, the observed concordance rates do not correspond to degrees of genetic similarity. None of the comparisons between MZ twins and others in table 5 are even remotely significant17. If same-sex romantic attraction has a genetic component, it is massively overwhelmed by other factors. As argued above, it is more likely that any genetic influence, if present, can only be expressed in specific and circumscribed social structures." [underline added] (Opposite sex twins and adolescents same-sex attraction" by Peter Bearman and Hannah Bruckner, Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy, 2001. http://iserp.columbia.edu/content/opposite-sex-twins-and-adolescent-same-sex-attraction.
In addition, genetic information that supports heterosexual attraction is more likely to be passed to offspring than would homosexual genetic information, since homosexual practice does not produce offspring. It would seem, as the study states, that homosexuality is not genetically based. Therefore, homosexuality is a learned behavior and should be called a preference, not an orientation.
Second, if being born gay means that homosexuality is morally acceptable because it is natural to them, then it must also be morally acceptable for those who are born with a tendency to oppose homosexuality. It would mean that "heteros" should not be urged to change their "orientation," nor should they be ridiculed for opposing homosexuality -- since they are born that way. To be consistent, the homosexual community should support homophobia as a natural sexual orientation that they are born with. After all, it would seem more likely that heterosexuality is genetically based since heterosexual behavior produces offspring where homosexual behavior does not. So, heterosexual orientation must be genetically natural, should be supported as a normal behavior, should not be ridiculed, should have civil rights protection, and be promoted in schools and the media. And, homosexuals who accuse heteros of being homophobic should be labeled as heterphobes. Otherwise, the obvious double-standard offered by the homosexual community will once again rear its ugly head.
Furthermore, to carry the excuse that homosexuality is genetically based to its logical conclusion, then men born with a natural attraction to young boys should also be considered as having a legitimate sexual orientation with its accompanying moral propriety. Or, are we to say that only homosexual attraction is genetic and morally good where pedophilia is not? If so, why the double standard? And, to step further into the abyss, what do we do with those who are born with the tendency to lie, covet, hate, and steal? Shouldn't they all be morally acceptable as well, since that is how we are born? If not, why not?
The problem with using genetics as an excuse to justify behavior is that whatever tendency we might be born with must be considered normal. This includes lying, pedophilia, homosexuality, and rape. But, such a logical inference will not be acceptable to the pro-homosexual community because selective statistics and discriminatory reasoning are offered to justify their behavior.
Bk21
Guru
Hi,
I think you didn't read the article I posted just before your reply.
but again, there is no ONE GENE, and not ONLY GENETIC EXPLANATION, other factors enter in action, genetics is not the ONLY explanation, most of scientists at least agrees on that.
The gene passing by X (the previous article)thus favoring its passing through females is just one side of the story, and the arguments you posted are the non-genetic side of the story and the truth is certainly due to both, not to mention child molestation etc which are other NON GENETIC factor...
in fact, the summary of the article YOU posted sums it all: quoting "...a general model that allows for genetic expression of same-sex attraction under specific, highly circumscribed, social conditions."
No need to go again on the moral to take going from here.. and genetics (your final paragraph) certainly does not justify tendencies to be called "normal": lying, pedophilia, and rape inculde harm toward unconsentant people and though should be prohibited by the society, while homosexuality between two consentant men does not (I know everybody here doesn't agree on that and we've been through this since 3 days ago).
Wes Woodhead
Mentor
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,104
For all intents and purposes, evolution is clearly a statistical impossibility. I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist. Far too many have made so called "science" their religion. In reality, it's scientism, not real science. They don't do their own research, but blindly accept what they are told. All that is another topic.
Here is the main point that I take from all this. RACE is the main factor. I would have never known about this homo player if not for castefootball. The mainstream media dont much seem to care about this. Now I can guarantee that had this been a black homo this would be the number one story in the nation. We would be hearing about this for the next 20 years. The school would be put on probation or otherwise punished. The gay homo negro would be an instant celebrity. Hed be on Dr. Phil, and Ellen, and all that. Christians, professors, and brainwashed students would be marching in the streets all over the country. I think it proves that the western world is by far more anti-white, than pro homo.
Here is the main point that I take from all this. RACE is the main factor. I would have never known about this homo player if not for castefootball. The mainstream media dont much seem to care about this. Now I can guarantee that had this been a black homo this would be the number one story in the nation. We would be hearing about this for the next 20 years. The school would be put on probation or otherwise punished. The gay homo negro would be an instant celebrity. Hed be on Dr. Phil, and Ellen, and all that. Christians, professors, and brainwashed students would be marching in the streets all over the country. I think it proves that the western world is by far more anti-white, than pro homo.
FootballDad
Hall of Famer
Thanks for the reply, BK21. All that I'm saying is that homosexuality is a choice, a preference. All of this "it's genetic" garbage has been promoted by the usual suspects in order to normalize the behavior in the quest to destroy institutions. For all intents and purposes, it's the same as the promotion of black athletic superiority. So before you travel down the road of pseudo-science, step back and take a look at the big picture and the intent of the promoters of the homosexual agenda.
Bk21
Guru
You don't need faith to understand evolution, I have none actually. Adam and Eve need a huge leap of faith, not evolution, but;this is another topic that I will start after the 11th of october (work, always work
); and we'll discuss about it afterwards.@footballdad hope you participate in the debate too (and all who are interested)
I really need to get away from the internet if I don't want to be in serious trouble
Last edited:
Carolina Speed
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,876
actually the VAST MAJORITY of europeans know that evolution is truth, I'm shocked that you're not aware of that!
now professors are being aggressed in schools physically and verbally by the new wave of muslims contesting Evolution for godly reasons.. but the figures are close to 100percent between white europeans. I don't beleive that someone can look objectively on the overwhelming proofs and still not beleive in it!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html
They exchanged the truth for a lie, and worshipped and served the CREATED things rather than the CREATOR-who is forever praised. Amen. Romans 1:25
Enter through the NARROW GATE. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and MANY enter through it. But SMALL is the gate and NARROW the road that leads to life, and only a FEW find it. Matthew 7:13-14
Thank you Bk21 for confirming what the Bible says!
If the Bible is true, I'm in good shape and there's going to be alot of people in trouble, but if it's not then according to what most evolutionist believe I'll just die and that's it. I'm good either way. Evolutionists are gambling with their existence.
Now I believe in science, but unlike evolutionists, I believe God created everything. The Bible clearly states there is a creator and most will worship created things other than a creator.
There's no argument here. Either the Bible is true or it's not. You're free to believe what you want, but I wouldn't want to be on the losing side!
Carolina Speed
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,876
Bk21, I will be more than happy to discuss any part of the Bible with you, not just the nice bits as you say, but any answer I give you probably won't satisfy you. I believe the Bible is the word of God and I will never be able to explain everything God does, for if I could he wouldn't be much of a God would he. Get it?
I will say this, many people in the Bible made mistakes, Adam and Eve, Moses, David, Peter, etc. and they paid for those mistakes. It's called sin. We all sin, even you, whether you believe it or not.
Jesus answered, "I am the way" John 14:6, not you, me, or other Christians!
A big mistake people who aren't Christian and even Christians focus on people not Jesus. People will let you down. Jesus didn't say follow people who say they are Christian, he said follow me(Jesus).
As far as wikipedia's opinions on Bible history, I'm surprised you referenced that as an authority on the Bible. Don't just get a information from someone who doesn't believe, but also get information from a reference that does believe, then decide!
Anak
Mentor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 771
You're going to end up as manure just like the rest of us. No heavenly afterlife.
Carolina Speed
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,876
Wow jaxvid, you and I must be living on 2 different planets. I think you're making a generalization of Christians when you say most are queer friendly. It may be that way in Michigan, but not here. If one says they are Christian and are accepting of homosexuality, I would have to question whether they are really Christian.
What I really wanted to say is; one of the biggest mistakes people make is focusing what Christians do, instead of focusing on Jesus. People are going to let you down and yes Christians sin. Becoming a Christian doesn't make you perfect and free from sin, but it will make you not want to sin. Christians sometimes act in sinful ways.
In regards to homosexuality, I realize there are denominations appointing gay clergy and performing gay marriages, but it's hardly a majority here in North Carolina, but obviously they can't possibly be real Christians! Not everyone who says, 'Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven,......many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in your name,....then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you. Matthew: 7;21-23
There's not one reference in the Bible that says homosexuality is OK! There are numerous references, too many to name, in the Bible that condemn homosexuality.
Carolina Speed
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,876
Ha, ha, that's a good one from the all-knowing Anak, you better be right or it's going to be real hot where you're going to end up!
You're so intelligent, how did you come up with that?
That sounds attractive, and I know a couple of gays who are good citizens but the problem is that the homosexual lobby have made it clear they will not accept a live and let live attitude. Over the last 20 years they have demanded ever escalating infringements on freedom of speech and association rights, a lower age of consent for boys, "gay studies" in schools, more funding for AIDS than all cancers combined (Senator Helms got raked over the coals for mentioning that), and longer prison sentences for so-called hate crimes which are very liberally defined. They've also used their privileged position in media to wage a cultural war against traditional western society promoting maladaptive lifestyles in general, not just their own.
I've nothing against them personally, and I agree with you on evolution*, but too many of them are a part of the cultural Marxist coalition.
* BTW religiosity is adaptive. It's certainly been good for a once small tribe known as Arabs who, since becoming Islamic, have since spread out all over the place.
You're right about the big picture but I suspect there is a genetic component to homosexuality. They talk different and their mannerisms are often straight out of old stereotypes. Of course, there are other theories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Cochran#Homosexuality
Anak
Mentor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 771
Hell and the Devil are Medieval inventions.
- Status