PDA

View Full Version : Life Brittish neuroscientist says that being gay is genetic


Pages : 1 2 [3]

kysirsoze
06-26-2011, 09:32 PM
I love how Donger came in and changed the arguement to his completely unrelated point of reproductive supremecy. What in the hell does that have to do anything?? Aer we really hurting so badly for more people on this planet that the government should disallow any marriage that doesn't have the potential to yield children? Thank God there are gay couples who just want to love each other and not crank out a bunch of kids. My rent is high enough as it is.

go bowe
06-26-2011, 09:37 PM
I love how Donger came in and changed the arguement to his completely unrelated point of reproductive supremecy. What in the hell does that have to do anything?? Aer we really hurting so badly for more people on this planet that the government should disallow any marriage that doesn't have the potential to yield children? Thank God there are gay couples who just want to love each other and not crank out a bunch of kids. My rent is high enough as it is.

really, thank god for gay people?

i like it... :thumb:

bluehawkdoc
06-26-2011, 09:45 PM
I find it interesting that each of the states that are now allowing gay marriage had to depend on the legislature to get it passed. When put before the people for a vote, gay marriage has been voted down by a significant margin. The will of the people?

listopencil
06-26-2011, 09:46 PM
I find it interesting that each of the states that are now allowing gay marriage had to depend on the legislature to get it passed. When put before the people for a vote, gay marriage has been voted down by a significant margin. The will of the people?

I guess it's a good thing that we have ways to protect the minority from the majority in this country.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 09:46 PM
Just as I expected, you haven't read this thread. Go back to the beginning of the thread. Read all of the posts up to and including mine where I quoted the Bible. If you do that then my point should be fairly obvious to you.

I have read the thread. You were posting in response to Donger, it got responded to by Alnorth, and you made your comment that I quoted. My point was about relevancy, and you took off from there. That's why I've asked for the explanation and the reconciliation.

kysirsoze
06-26-2011, 09:48 PM
I guess it's a good thing that we have ways to protect the minority from the majority in this country.

Yep

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 09:49 PM
I love how Donger came in and changed the arguement to his completely unrelated point of reproductive supremecy. What in the hell does that have to do anything?? Aer we really hurting so badly for more people on this planet that the government should disallow any marriage that doesn't have the potential to yield children? Thank God there are gay couples who just want to love each other and not crank out a bunch of kids. My rent is high enough as it is.

Ditto to everything on here. Anyone who reads the thread front to back is gonna see for themselves how many times Donger contradicted himself and argued semantics and changed the subject and lied about what was said and when. I even told him the other Planateers would see it all for themselves, he just kept digging his hole deeper and deeper.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 09:52 PM
I worded my last post wrong. I meant to say that's why Jesus DID NOT treat "degenerates" as less than everybody else. That's why I put arguing scripture < Jesus' teachings. He gave them an opportunity to pursue life in heaven and reached out to those who broke God's laws. Like a good Christian would reach out to other "degererates", as opposed to Christians of conveinance who use the Bible to feel discriminate and feel superior.

What does this have to do with any aspect of the discussion on hand?

listopencil
06-26-2011, 09:53 PM
I have read the thread. You were posting in response to Donger, it got responded to by Alnorth, and you made your comment that I quoted. My point was about relevancy, and you took off from there. That's why I've asked for the explanation and the reconciliation.

And have you now found out that I wasn't making any comments whatsoever about gay marriage, or implying that the quoted Bible text condoned it?



*after edit- I was pointing out Christ's teachings about how to treat people that you might consider "abnormal".

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 09:59 PM
And have you now found out that I wasn't making any comments whatsoever about gay marriage, or implying that the quoted Bible text condoned it?



*after edit- I was pointing out Christ's teachings about how to treat people that you might consider "abnormal".

I know what you were attempting to point out. I was pointing out the irrelevancy of your quoted passage. You seem to have gotten on your high horse simply because you confused your own posts' intent. That's why I was asking for your explanation and reconciliation. You weren't making sense.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 10:01 PM
What does this have to do with any aspect of the discussion on hand?

You said "That's why he admonished the prostitutes" in response to my mistyped post. So I retyped my mistyped post to correct myself. That's what is has to do with the discussion at hand. Duh.

listopencil
06-26-2011, 10:02 PM
I know what you were pointing out. I was pointing out the irrelevancy of your quoted passage. You seem to have gotten on your high horse simply because you confused your own posts' intent.

Nope. Once again, no high horse, you're just wrong. You got caught up in the general conversation of this thread and weren't paying attention to what Donger and I were posting to each other.

DenverChief
06-26-2011, 10:12 PM
I find it interesting that each of the states that are now allowing gay marriage had to depend on the legislature to get it passed.

Not all

Massachusetts became the first state to permit gay marriage after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled by a 4-3 opinion that a ban on same-sex marriage violated the state’s constitution. The case in question was Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health 440 Mass. 309 (http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/440/440mass309.html).



On October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled (http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152.pdf) (.pdf) in favor of eight same-sex couples who, in 2004, were all denied marriage licenses.
The couples in question argued that the state’s prohibition of equal access to marriage for same-sex couples violated the Connecticut Constitution on the grounds that it discriminated against them on the basis of their sex. They also contended that civil unions created a separate but not equal status for gay and lesbian citizens.


On April 3, 2009, the Supreme Court of Iowa unanimously decided (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040300376.html) that a state ban on gay marriage violated Iowa’s constitution.
This landmark ruling (http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/varnum-v-brien.html) came in the case of Varnum v. Brien in which the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that said that there was no compelling government interest in denying same-sex couples equal access to marriage. In its opinion the Court said (.pdf) (http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20090403/07-1499.pdf):

New Hamshire, Vermont, D.C. and now New york all did it via the legislative process

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 10:13 PM
Nope. Once again, no high horse, you're just wrong. You got caught up in the general conversation of this thread and weren't paying attention to what Donger and I were posting to each other.

I was paying attention. You should go back and take another look.

Donger:

Being attractive or not isn't an abnormality. Being equipped as a guy (or gal) and wanting the same sex is.

You

That's debatable. "Homosexual" behavior is seen in creatures other than man, and self-destructive/socially destructive behavior has been observed in mankind. What do you consider abnormality?

Alnorth:

This line isn't going anywhere. Someone who is religious will say God said so, and someone who isn't will pull crap stats from crap researchers and/or just ignore your point and say they know gay people are deviant just because, and you may be deviant yourself for not knowing that.

The law is cleaner, more relevant, and its somewhere between difficult and impossible to argue that gay marriage bans are constitutional.
...

You:

Yeah, I know. To them I say:

'For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

That last quote is irrelevant to the discussion, because it's not about what you're claiming it to be. I noted the irrelevance, and noted how Christ treated the prosititute (sinful 'abnormal). The rest took off from there, with the questionable help from Backwards Masking.

I'm not going to continue this with you, because it's a waste of time. That's what happened, no matter how you now try fudging it.

kysirsoze
06-26-2011, 10:15 PM
I was paying attention. You should go back and take another look. I'm not going to continue this with you, because it's a waste of time. You made a post and followed up with an irrelevant bible quote.

Donger:



You



Alnorth:



You:



That last quote is irrelevant to the discussion, because it's not about what you're claiming it to be.

Is this argument still going on?

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 10:17 PM
Just Passin By uses the "That's Not Relevant to the Discussion" almost as much as Donger touts his reproductive supremacy. And that's saying a LOT.

listopencil
06-26-2011, 10:18 PM
Here, let me help you. Donger stated that a person is "abnormal" if he can't perform a functioning role and properly socialize in his native society. He listed one of those abnormalities as being homosexual. Someone else made a post implying that religious people would be predisposed to a certain viewpoint. I pointed out several other types of people that would then be included in that list of abnormal people:

1) A malnourished person
2) A Stranger
3) A naked person
4) A sick person
5) A prisoner

...and how Jesus might feel about your treatment of them.

listopencil
06-26-2011, 10:20 PM
I was paying attention. You should go back and take another look.



Once again, no your weren't paying attention. I quoted the section of the post I was referring to when I posted that piece of Matthew 25.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 10:24 PM
Once again, no your weren't paying attention. I quoted the section of the post I was referring to when I posted that piece of Matthew 25.

I just quoted the thread line. I was paying attention. Feel free to reread it as often as is necessary, so that you can figure it out. As I said, this is a waste of time. You're now arguing with an exact quote of what you were responding to, and all the follow up and preamble.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 10:25 PM
Just Passin By uses the "That's Not Relevant to the Discussion" almost as much as Donger touts his reproductive supremacy. And that's saying a LOT.

Well, the relevancy of the passage is what's at issue for Listo, since he can't seem to follow his own posts, and you're posting a lot of meaningless crap that has nothing to do with anything, so the word has been appropriate.

pr_capone
06-26-2011, 10:26 PM
I find it interesting that each of the states that are now allowing gay marriage had to depend on the legislature to get it passed. When put before the people for a vote, gay marriage has been voted down by a significant margin. The will of the people?

Really?

This is not an issue that needs to be put to a vote before the people. The matter is constitutional. These are rights that gays should have had from day 1.

Same as the flag burning issue. It is protected under the first amendment despite laws in Texas that states it was illegal to do so. Texas v. Johnson. There was massive uproar by the people (read: the majority) after the court's decision but the fact is that it is protected.

The Constitution says in Amendment Fourteen:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What this basically means is that the States do not have a right to pick and choose the people to whom it will grant rights and privileges. If one group of people is allowed to marry, all groups are allowed to marry. If same-sex couples are barred from marriage, it is an abridgement of the privileges they are entitled to as citizens of the United States; it would be a deprivation of liberty and prosperity, and would strip same-sex couples of equal protection of the laws. Plainly, it is discriminatory, and the Fourteenth Article clearly states that selective granting of privileges is not allowed in the United States.

listopencil
06-26-2011, 10:32 PM
I just quoted the thread line. I was paying attention. Feel free to reread it as often as is necessary, so that you can figure it out. As I said, this is a waste of time. You're now arguing with an exact quote of what you were responding to.


As I said, I quoted a section of Alnorth's post:

This line isn't going anywhere. Someone who is religious will say God said so...

...and replied with a Bible quote regarding other people that would fit Donger's definition of abnormal, and how Jesus said to treat them. If you agree with Donger, and you are a Christian, then you are obligated to treat homosexuals in the same way you would treat Jesus Christ or you're a hypocrite.

Just Passin' By
06-26-2011, 10:38 PM
As I said, I quoted a section of Alnorth's post:



...and replied with a Bible quote regarding other people that would fit Donger's definition of abnormal, and how Jesus said to treat them. If you agree with Donger, and you are a Christian, then you are obligated to treat homosexuals in the same way you would treat Jesus Christ or you're a hypocrite.

again:

I just quoted the thread line. I was paying attention. Feel free to reread it as often as is necessary, so that you can figure it out. As I said, this is a waste of time. You're now arguing with an exact quote of what you were responding to, and all the follow up and preamble.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7717097&postcount=520

listopencil
06-26-2011, 10:41 PM
again:


Yeah, it's probably better for you if you just pretend that you didn't make an ass of yourself. Good decision on your part.

Dave Lane
06-26-2011, 11:23 PM
If Listopencil was a typical religious person I'd be a 1,000 times more impressed with religion than I am.

Backwards Masking
06-26-2011, 11:50 PM
If Listopencil was a typical religious person I'd be a 1,000 times more impressed with religion than I am.

Me too. I'd be far more likely to go to church regularly if there were more people like Lisopencil and less people like a few others who've posted on here.

Rausch
06-27-2011, 02:37 AM
If Listopencil was a typical religious person I'd be a 1,000 times more impressed with religion than I am.

Wow.

So every bible, book, cult, god, or philosophy never made you think you should reconsider that religion thing but.....




LISTOPENCIL did.


He's the guy?

Feel free to worship him - seems decent enough and I'm sure he'll appreciate the extra income - but you might consider spending more time on what you believe and less time worrying about how other people act...

Donger
06-27-2011, 03:23 AM
Ditto to everything on here. Anyone who reads the thread front to back is gonna see for themselves how many times Donger contradicted himself and argued semantics and changed the subject and lied about what was said and when. I even told him the other Planateers would see it all for themselves, he just kept digging his hole deeper and deeper.

LMAO

Donger
06-27-2011, 03:24 AM
Oh, and bravo on this bad boy making 500 in the Lounge.

Rausch
06-27-2011, 04:00 AM
Oh, and bravo on this bad boy making 500 in the Lounge.

There's always that...

Donger
06-27-2011, 04:04 AM
There's always that...

Yep, and them homos can never take it away from us.

Rausch
06-27-2011, 04:06 AM
Yep, and them homos can never take it away from us.

Well, I guess neither can the towel heads or darkies.


Or the mods.




Or the Cromags.









Or.......WTF was your point?

kstater
06-27-2011, 04:08 AM
Oh, and bravo on this bad boy making 500 in the Lounge.

It's funny watching some align themselves with the Phelps clan on this issue though.

Donger
06-27-2011, 04:10 AM
Well, I guess neither can the towel heads or darkies.


Or the mods.




Or the Cromags.









Or.......WTF was your point?

I'm just surprised that no one went full DC and got this thread moved.

Donger
06-27-2011, 04:11 AM
It's funny watching some align themselves with the Phelps clan on this issue though.

I guess I missed that.

Rausch
06-27-2011, 04:13 AM
I'm just surprised that no one went full DC and got this thread moved.

It shouldn't...

kstater
06-27-2011, 04:15 AM
I guess I missed that.

So you don't think God hates Fags?

Donger
06-27-2011, 04:22 AM
So you don't think God hates pillowbiters?

No.

Rausch
06-27-2011, 04:31 AM
So you don't think God hates pillowbiters?

I don't think God hates...

BWillie
06-27-2011, 07:57 AM
LMAO

So a person can be gay and straight?

A gay person can't have sex with a person of the opposite sex because they are gay? Like they are magnetically alike and thus are physically repulsed and unable to have heterosexual sex?

WTF? You didn't answer a damn thing.

To be honest if a homosexual gets an erection and can procreate with a woman they are bisexual. If someone put a gun to my head and said stuff your junk in that dudes ass I physically would not be able to do it because I'm straight. Some ''homos'' just prefer dick over the clam

Fried Meat Ball!
06-27-2011, 08:03 AM
To be honest if a homosexual gets an erection and can procreate with a woman they are bisexual. If someone put a gun to my head and said stuff your junk in that dudes ass I physically would not be able to do it because I'm straight. Some ''homos'' just prefer dick over the clam

Not necessarily true. Experiments have shown that many heterosexual men can and do get aroused by visual stimulation of either sex. Can't find a link right now (afraid of what the Google search would turn up for me while I'm at work), but it's out there.

Dave Lane
06-27-2011, 08:12 AM
I don't think God hates...

I don't think god exists but it really doesn't matter to the discussion.

It about how people feel about it.

ct
06-27-2011, 09:42 AM
Just seeing this thread...

Some people are born assholes, if we're gonna start fixing genetic predispositions, i'd much rather fix this one 1st

kstater
06-27-2011, 10:40 AM
Just seeing this thread...

Some people are born assholes, if we're gonna start fixing genetic predispositions, i'd much rather fix this one 1st

You'd rather fix the predisposition to liking the cock first? Weird priorities over things serious like cancer and other diseases.

vailpass
06-27-2011, 10:59 AM
Its nothing being tied to a fence for a few days won't cure.

Cave Johnson
06-27-2011, 11:03 AM
Its nothing being tied to a fence for a few days won't cure.

Matthew Shepard, that shit is hilarious....

Brock
06-27-2011, 11:05 AM
Matthew Shepard, that shit is hilarious....

See, he's being edgy and dangerous, kind of like how Claythan does it. It's really, really FUNNAY.

vailpass
06-27-2011, 11:06 AM
Two knee-jerk victims right off the bat, where are the rest of the Planet predictable?

Cave Johnson
06-27-2011, 11:07 AM
Two knee-jerk victims right off the bat, where are the rest of the Planet predictable?

They sure dragged the black off that guy in TX, amirite?

Brock
06-27-2011, 11:07 AM
Two knee-jerk victims right off the bat, where are the rest of the Planet predictable?

LMAO Yeah, dude. What a major reaction you got. LOL I TROLL U!!!

vailpass
06-27-2011, 11:13 AM
LMAO Yeah, dude. What a major reaction you got. LOL I TROLL U!!!

Nothing like a good old fashioned nazi stomping to draw out the limp wristed.

ct
06-27-2011, 01:54 PM
You'd rather fix the predisposition to liking the cock first? Weird priorities over things serious like cancer and other diseases.

do they teach people to read where you come from?

BWillie
06-27-2011, 06:23 PM
Not necessarily true. Experiments have shown that many heterosexual men can and do get aroused by visual stimulation of either sex. Can't find a link right now (afraid of what the Google search would turn up for me while I'm at work), but it's out there.

Well that means they are gay then...they just won't admit it. If you see a naked dude, and you get a boner. Ur a homo. Plain and simple.

pr_capone
06-27-2011, 07:20 PM
Well that means they are gay then...they just won't admit it. If you see a naked dude, and you get a boner. Ur a homo. Plain and simple.

What if the naked dude is plowing some some hottie? You are still seeing some dong flop around.

Backwards Masking
06-27-2011, 07:22 PM
Well that means they are gay then...they just won't admit it. If you see a naked dude, and you get a boner. Ur a homo. Plain and simple.

Wouldn't that make anyone who's ever watched a non lesbian porno gay? Even "straight" porn?

Ugly Duck
06-27-2011, 07:54 PM
where are the rest of the Planet predictable?

I'm here...

For those interested in numbers & facts & stuff - here's some April 2011 poll numbers on support for gay marriage. Note: Young people aged 18-34 are underrepresented here cuz many exclusively use cell phones & this was a land-line survey. And the young folks are the biggest supporters. Looks like support (at least 51%) for gay marriage is normal! Only folks its not normal for are undereducated people, Republicans, old people & males:

51% say "marriages between gay and lesbian couples should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages," while 47% disagree.

57% of women
45% of men
59% of people who attended college
42% of people who did not attend college
64% of Democrats
55% of Independents
27% of Republicans
60% of people aged 35-49
40% of people over 50

http://justifiableanger.blogspot.com/2011/04/cnn-says-51-support-gay-marriage-but-is.html

http://www.pluralistnation.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/SSM-graph.png

Sannyasi
06-27-2011, 09:04 PM
Well that means they are gay then...they just won't admit it. If you see a naked dude, and you get a boner. Ur a homo. Plain and simple.

Okay, so what if you are tied down and a gay dude starts rubbing up against you? I mean, that isn't your fault, penises just can't tell the difference between gay and straight friction.

Dave Lane
06-27-2011, 11:12 PM
That chart looks like a red and blue boner. What the fuck now that's some sick shit republicans and democrats forming an gay boner.

|Zach|
06-28-2011, 12:05 AM
I am surprised people make the whole nature vs environment thing such a big deal.

Ugly Duck
06-28-2011, 02:45 PM
Okay, so what if you are tied down and a gay dude starts rubbing up against you?

I hate it when that happens!