What's new
By:

So gay!!!

Beantown said:
You're using gender as an example, I was using sexual preference to show mine. Again you dont make any sense.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, there comes a point where I say to myself, "What the **** are you doing?"

That was said about five pages ago, but I didn't listen. Some doors will never open.
 
Moe go talk to evolutionist and biologist. I have had many discussions with handfulls of them about this topic. No matter how you dice it homosexuality is as evolutionary weak as it gets and they do not participate in genetic diverity or continuing our species evolutionary path. Not to mention the ample of evidence that supports homosexuality being caused by environmental factors as well as alot of cases being gender disorders.
 
YB85 said:
Sometimes, there comes a point where I say to myself, "What the **** are you doing?"
That was said about five pages ago, but I didn't listen. Some doors will never open.
Click to expand...

Im sure its frustrating for you, but you cant change the fact that homosexuals dont participate in human evolution or genetic diversity.
 
I guess I'll repost and see if bean takes the bait this time:

"I don't think you read the article. The article, which cites people far better at biology than you or I, does actually provide sound reasoning as to why homosexuals exist due to evolution.

I'll distill the entire article for you even more: evolution caused homosexuality.

You discount the article because you don't agree with the "theory" that the citations (to say nothing about the authors) therein put forth. Let me ask you this: how many biology degrees do you have? How many co-authored, peer-reviewed articles on evolution do you have? If you don't mind, I'll go ahead and discount your hypothesis (to call it a theory is a slap in the face to those involved in actual science) a few notches below the article's theory. "
 
Beantown said:
Moe, all the theories you throw out there doesnt change the fact that homosexuals do not participate in evolution. In all species the higher percentage of the population that is invovled in procreation the better off that species is because of the greater amount of genetic diversity. Homosexuals are increasing which will result in less genetic diversity in humans.
Click to expand...

this is a knee-slapper. and a head-scratcher.

if they don't participate in evolution, why don't they all still look like Cro-Magnon?

So Bean, how's this - - suppose a male homosexual has sexual relations one time with a woman. Then he is no longer a homosexual, right? So then he could marry another man, right?

Or maybe he can just go to a sperm bank and make a deposit. Then he's not a homosexual anymore because he's contributed to genetic diversity.

Sorry to all you lesbians out there though, I guess your solution isn't quite as easy.

OK, I'm sounding really dumb now.
 
chemdude1232 said:
I guess I'll repost and see if bean takes the bait this time:

"I don't think you read the article. The article, which cites people far better at biology than you or I, does actually provide sound reasoning as to why homosexuals exist due to evolution.

I'll distill the entire article for you even more: evolution caused homosexuality.

You discount the article because you don't agree with the "theory" that the citations (to say nothing about the authors) therein put forth. Let me ask you this: how many biology degrees do you have? How many co-authored, peer-reviewed articles on evolution do you have? If you don't mind, I'll go ahead and discount your hypothesis (to call it a theory is a slap in the face to those involved in actual science) a few notches below the article's theory. "
Click to expand...

You can pull all the theories off the internet you want, it doesnt change the FACT that homosexuals do not participate in genetic diversity or the continuation of our speciea evolution. Homosexuals rely on heterosexuals for the continuation of our species. The more homosexuals will lead to less gene diversity and a total homosexual popluation would result in our demise.
 
Beantown said:
Moe go talk to evolutionist and biologist. I have had many discussions with handfulls of them about this topic. No matter how you dice it homosexuality is as evolutionary weak as it gets and they do not participate in genetic diverity or continuing our species evolutionary path. Not to mention the ample of evidence that supports homosexuality being caused by environmental factors as well as alot of cases being gender disorders.
Click to expand...

Do you believe homosexuals will eventually die off like dinosaurs? I mean, if everyone was a homosexual, don't you think a few people would strap on the blindfolds and get some icky sex accomplished to keep the party going?
 
moevillini said:
this is a knee-slapper. and a head-scratcher.

if they don't participate in evolution, why don't they all still look like Cro-Magnon?

So Bean, how's this - - suppose a male homosexual has sexual relations one time with a woman. Then he is no longer a homosexual, right? So then he could marry another man, right?

Or maybe he can just go to a sperm bank and make a deposit. Then he's not a homosexual anymore because he's contributed to genetic diversity.

Sorry to all you lesbians out there though, I guess your solution isn't quite as easy

OK, I'm sounding really dumb now.
Click to expand...

Yea Im not really sure how to respond to this, but Moe dont you find it concering that many homosexuals are molested as children?....or that they really might just have a gender disorder. Most homosexual realtions are just mimicing hetersosexual one.
 
Beantown said:
Yea Im not really sure how to respond to this, but Moe dont you find it concering that many homosexuals are molested as children?....or that they really might just have a gender disorder. Most homosexual realtions are just mimicing hetersosexual one.
Click to expand...

Is there a higher percentage of homosexuals molested as children than heterosexuals? Do you have a citation for that, are are we just assuming that because it makes so much sense.
 
Beantown said:
You can pull all the theories off the internet you want, it doesnt change the FACT that homosexuals do not participate in genetic diversity or the continuation of our speciea evolution. Homosexuals rely on heterosexuals for the continuation of our species. The more homosexuals will lead to less gene diversity and a total homosexual popluation would result in our demise.
Click to expand...

You know nothing of what you are trying to talk about. Purely, simply, truthfully nothing. I would recommend a host of books I've found on this subject to you which obliterate your position, but I know you'll weakly retort with your baseless untruths and concocted misinformation. Give me a citation indicating that homosexuals are not products of evolution (and subsequently add to genetic diversity) and I will give you 10 citations that show that evolution caused homosexuality.
 
chemdude1232 said:
You know nothing of what you are trying to talk about. Purely, simply, truthfully nothing. I would recommend a host of books I've found on this subject to you which obliterate your position, but I know you'll weakly retort with your baseless untruths and concocted misinformation. Give me a citation indicating that homosexuals are not products of evolution (and subsequently add to genetic diversity) and I will give you 10 citations that show that evolution caused homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Homosexuals do not procreate nor do they add to genetic diversity because they cannot reproduce. Im sorry buddy but you cant change this.
 
Beantown said:
You're using gender as an example, I was using sexual preference to show mine. Again you dont make any sense.
Click to expand...

Sorry to interject, but he was not using gender as an example. Get it right Mr. Biologist. He used one's "sex." Which means M or F. Gender is one's propensity towards masculinity or feminism. Masculine male, feminine male, masculine female or feminine female. Thats gender.
 
KM32MVP said:
Sorry to interject, but he was not using gender as an example. Get it right Mr. Biologist. He used one's "sex." Which means M or F. Gender is one's propensity towards masculinity or feminism. Masculine male, feminine male, masculine female or feminine female. Thats gender.
Click to expand...

Good point, but it still made no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top