|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted July 18, 2004 09:17 AM |
|
|
Consis, by now you should have known that I'm circumcised from morality too. I guess you can add me to the Axis of Evil now.
btw, I was LMAO to that one. Cut the seriousness, pal. Admit that even you laughed at it.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted July 18, 2004 11:40 AM |
|
|
I dont know to me that was not really that funny either.
Be funny like some adult or teenager but a little kid.
Na man thats not really funny at all I agree with COnsis.
Be like undressing a little kid with your eyes, just totally sick you know what I mean dude?
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
IRh
Famous Hero
Lizard
|
|
posted July 18, 2004 02:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
--- HETEROsexuals???? ---
I think you must have misread my post, IRh
No, just, may be, read too straightly... Your sexuality is always limited blah blah religion etc. even if UR hetero...
lol Svarog
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted July 19, 2004 06:54 AM |
|
|
Lighten up you guys!
This little boy is obviously suckling --
Now I dunno about what you guys are familiar with but some of my women friends have teats like that. This is just typical suckling behavior.
Admit it -- you all JUST WISH -- !!!
(I think it's darling!)
ROFL
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted July 19, 2004 07:20 AM |
|
|
Sexual Discrimination At Its Finest
Quote:
Since when were heterosexuals ever denied anything based on their sexual orientation?
I was denied admittance into my university's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Society. I think it was because of the t-shirt I was wearing that said "I am a lesbian trapped in a male's body." They told me to prove it, so I withdrew my LICK HER License from my wallet. At this point, I was promptly asked to leave. 
Svarog, two questions.
1. Where'd you get that pic?
2. What the h*ll is that red bumpy ball-looking thingee?
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted July 19, 2004 07:29 AM |
|
|
Guys, lighten up.
Svarogs just trying to inject a bit of humor into the discussion, which isn't a bad thing.
I for one didn't take offense.
@ Khayman
ROTFLMAO man.
I'd have let you stay in my group just for having the cojones to try something like that.
The bally looking thing looks like a door-stop to me, or maybe one of those safety thing you put over plug-holes.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted July 19, 2004 08:34 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 19 Jul 2004
|
Finally. Someone who can actually take a joke, and make one at the same time.
Quote:
Svarog, two questions:
1. Where'd you get that pic?
2. What the h*ll is that red bumpy ball-looking thingee?
The pic is from Consis' private collection. He said he was a year old when his mom took the pic.
He's not asking about the object that is being sucked, Asmodean. The "red bumpy ball-looking thingie" is a red bumpy ball. And a ball is a thingie that doesn't want spikes, I guess. Though this one has some kind of nipples all over it. Anything more to clear up? 
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted July 19, 2004 09:17 AM |
|
|
Oh well in that case then thats really funny LOOOL Just LOOOL.
Consis is kind of like Paul on CHeers if yalls know who he is then you know what i mean  .
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted July 19, 2004 04:48 PM |
|
|
Two points of order :
1. I never make a claim to being the only foreskin of morality that has been discarded. The definite article should be replaced with an indefinite one.
2. Find a better LGBT club. Most are actually LGBTS for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered AND straight. They're quite inclusive and you get to fantasize about all the carpet munchers you want to. Best bake sales of all the campus organizations, too. Much better than the objectivists who feel that any who cannot provide their own baked goods are leeches on society.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted July 19, 2004 05:53 PM |
|
|
lol @ svarog
still havent understood all the fuzz about this thread though. Isnt it good if people are gay?
i mean.. it would be alot worse if everyone was sad or angry...or jumping at people for making funny jokes 
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted July 19, 2004 05:55 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 6 Sep 2004
|
Where The Hell Is My Sense Of Humor
I know it's around here somewhere but I can't seem to find it. I guess I'll simply laugh in jest with the general consensus.
ha...
ha...
ha...
What a good laugh that was. I feel so much better.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
IRh
Famous Hero
Lizard
|
|
posted July 26, 2004 06:06 PM |
|
|
2"Lesbian trapped in the male's body":
Whay dou you mean by it? It sounds much like "I am 100% natural (straight)" - a bit agressive to enter GLBT community....
____________
|
|
gorman
Promising
Legendary Hero
Been around since before 2003
|
|
posted July 27, 2004 10:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Return of the fictional nemesis. How remindfully droll you are. Can we say split personality?
I dare say I can say split personality
And Ruby...sometimes I dare say you deserve to be slapped
____________
When all else fails... Take notes.... ALL the time... ESPECIALLY when playing D&D.... or Pokemon in my case
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted August 29, 2004 02:13 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 28 Aug 2004
|
transfered posts
Posts moved from Debate: Homosexuality is genetic in origin:
viking:
Quote:
Homosexuallity usually depends on environment. If a person is alianated from people of the opposite sex. There is a chance of becoming homosexual. So it almost has nothing to do with genetics.
There is also people who idle some other people (whos one of the characteristics is homosexuallity), this is are, but sometimes the fans become homosexual.
And there I say Svarog was right.
Edit: Re-cross-post removed.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Pitsu
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 30, 2004 02:54 PM |
|
Edited By: Pitsu on 30 Aug 2004
|
I know it is more than 6 month late, but I occasionally read DarGOn's post on the first page and felt a call for replay:
Quote:
Studies seem to indicate that there is a genetic link to homosexuality, while on the other hand literature indicates that the environment also has a strong impact.
The same applies to ones intelligence (Gray and Thompson, Nature Review in Neuroscience Jun 2004), artistic abilities etc...
Quote:
Not to mention that lesbianism has shown no genetic component as of this date, the only studies to support any type of genetic component have been among homosexual men. Thus one would conclude that homosexuality has a genetic predisposition that is brought to fruition through a certain type of environment (i.e. overbearing mother with distant father, etc).
GW Bush would say: even not having strong evidences, does not mean that lesbianim has no genetic causes. As said by Mustanski BS (Annu Rev Sex Res. 2002) the results and methodologies are limited and there is lack of research in women. I would not draw any conclusions about the genetic background of homosexualism yet.
Quote:
Many argue that homosexual behavior is a victimless act so others should mind their own business. This has an appearance of logic, but fails upon examination. Bestiality, necrophilia, prostitution, bigamy, etc can all be argued to be a victimless act, yet still many in society would argue that they are wrong.
Bestiality and necrophilia- one does not really know the feelings of the other side, therefore there is a potential victim. Anti-prostitution in forehand is against forced prostitution and women abuse, not agains girls who are nymphs.
Quote:
Suicide is a “victimless” act, yet should it be tolerated? There are people who desire to cut off their sexual organ so as to become their “true selves”….again this is a victimless act, yet should society accept such action as “normal”? There is a subgroup of people who believe that their legs, arms, etc. are not part of their true identity thus seek out means of removing these body parts…is this to be accepted? Thus just because something is victimless does not mean it is right or to be accepted by society.
I would not consider any act that has permanent negative effect victimless even if it has a positive side (becoming "true self"). This is up to society to accept suicides etc or not. Because a sexual relationship can be changed any day, it is IMO irrelevant to compare it with cutting your arms.
Quote:
Others would argue that no one should stand in the way of two people that love each other, but then again one would have to accept bigamy and some of the proponents of adult/child sexual relationships.
Again, if all parties in bigamy are happy, why not let them be. A child is considered not to be aware of his/her rights and is not responsible of all his/her acts. Hence, a child cannot be compared to an adult gay.
Quote:
Adoption I believe is acceptable as it provides some sense of family to unwanted children. But the creation of a child to be reared in a homosexual relationship is unwise as research and common sense has shown repeatedly that both the female and male perspecitve/skills/invovlment is critical to the rearing of healthy children. Any time a child is lacking of the “other sex” (whether from single parenthood, homosexual couples, etc) the child has been handicapped in life.
Could you give me the reference to the original “research and common sense”?
Quote:
So in conclusion I think that homosexuality should not be promoted, but neither should homosexuals be persecuted.
Surprise! I agree you. I dunno why gays should have parades just because of being a gay. I is silly to promote your sexual orientation. On the other hand, why should gays have less rights than fetish heteros and other extremistic heteros.
____________
|
|
Pitsu
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 30, 2004 03:20 PM |
|
Edited By: Pitsu on 5 Sep 2004
|
Consis wrote:
Quote:
1. What influences our decision-making process?(as Dargon pointed out)
2. If a person is cloned will the clone make the same choices as it's doner being that it has the same genes?
1 Mainly memory and interpretation of sensory information (i.e brain functions). Decision-making is not directly coded in genes. But genes can influence brain development and therefore also affect decisions.
2 I would say (my personal opinion) that genetically identical persons have slightly higher probability to make identical coiches, but only slightly.
LATER EDIT: Err, it might be difficult to get, what I meant. More illustratively: genes define the possibilities and limits of hardware, but decisions are made by software based on data(or maybe drivers is better to say) on harddrive. Software is installed and data gathered (learned) throughout our lives.
(damn, corrected a minor error and all of a sudden the thread rises to top like with a new post. Sorry about that)
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted September 05, 2004 08:52 PM |
|
|
Copied from Debate: Homosexuality is genetic in origin
Trogdor
Quote:
I'm afraid I have to side with Svarog here. Homosexuality is genetic? Whoever said that was definately a spaghetti.
Homosexuality is purely by people's choices and their reactions to it. I was forced to watch a film called "Philadelphia" in my English class, which was about some gay man who had AIDS. It was his choice to be a homosexual.
RedSoxFan3
Quote:
Quote:
Okay here we go with the Affirmative argument.
I believe that homosexuality IS genetic in origin.
Homosexuality is the physical emotional and sexual attraction to a member of one’s own sex. It is prevalent in ALL countries and societies in the world and is believed to be present in approximately 10% of all people, with the same demographic in each country.
1st argument.
If it was a ‘learned’ behaviour, then one would expect these results to be skewed, with some societies showing a higher prevalence than others, but the 10% seems to be a universal figure.
This is consistent with other recessive genes in human populations, such as red hair or green eyes.
But how could it remain in the population for so long? If it was a recessive gene shouldn’t it have ‘died off?’
Well not necessarily, if it was paired of like: H-h, where H = straight and h = gay.
Say that you parents both had this genetic make up. Then by drawing that little genetics square you would find out that there’s a 25% chance of H-H, a 50% chance of H-h and a 25% chance of h-h embryos.
So potentially 25% of all people in the world would be gay. However, the offspring of H-H parents will never transmit the gay gene (they don’t have it), which brings this number down…..perhaps even down to….10%?!!
There may be evidence that points towards this, correct. But if I could have an explanation as to how this homosexuality gene would be adventageous, then I would believe it. In order to believe it is some sort of recessive gene, please explain why it could help a carrier of that gene. Until there is a logical explanation, and prove that such a gene does exist, there will be no way to tell. I do believe that it is likely that there could be such a gene, but with out an explanation as to why it stays in the gene pool, then I will not believe this.
From a survival of the species standpoint, I would consider it obvious that being homosexual would prevent reproduction and the further passing of it's own genes to its offspring, so from a scientific standpoint I will compare it to a genetic disorder called Systic Fibrosis, since you could consider genetic disorders a disadvantage to reproduction. However with these genetic disorders, there is some sort of an advantage to carriers of the disease.
With Systic Fibrosis there is a disorder in the gene that allows cells to release water through its cell membrane. When the gene mutates it the cell cannot release it's water supply in this manner. Now hundreds of years ago or longer, the disease cholera was killing hundreds of people. But more often than not people would die of diarrhea not the disease itself. So if you are a carrier of this disease then half of your enzymes will be bad and half will be good. Now. Let's say that you have diarrhea. You die of dehydration, because your cells let out all it's water at once. A carrier of this genetic defect will let out it water at only half bore, thus making that person less likely to die of diarrhea.
Sickle Cell Anemia is another disease similar. Carriers of this disease have an immunity to another disease of which I can't remember it name. But this is the idea I am talking about. What advantage to the human race, from a reproductive standpoint do carriers of this homosexual gene have?
Guys, keep your comments here. Don't mess up their structured debate. Feel free to start your own unstructured "normal" one.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted September 06, 2004 01:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What advantage to the human race, from a reproductive standpoint do carriers of this homosexual gene have?
Hmm, they leave more girls available.
On a serious note, I dont think that even if there is a proof of advantegous effect, it would be enough to believe homosexuality is genetical. Like, reading is advantegous, but is it genetical? No. There's only the potential to develope reading skills, just like there's potential within human sexuality to develope homosexual desires.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted September 06, 2004 09:26 AM |
|
|
I will again relate this theory of potential back to genetics, to play the devil advocate again.
I am a stutterer. Everyone stutters some of the time, some less then others, some more then others. I am a person that has developed a stutter. Now there are genetic dispositions that you will naturally stutter more then others, but whether or not it will develop into a habit like mine, depends on numerous factors within your personality.
Now one would argue, why wouldn't this supposed "predisposition" be removed from nature? We don't know, however we have prove that genetics is involved in stuttering and it has been proved. We also know that it is developed as well. The answer very well may be that homosexuality is both genetic and developed just as stuttering is genetic and developed.
One thing about stuttering is that one developed, it never goes away even with intensive therapy. It is also clearly evident that homosexuality cannot be reversed assuming that it is something that is developed.
I will also go further into deducing that perhaps the risk of having a predisposition to stutter, but not developing a stutter is somehow an advantage. Otherwise such predispositions would be removed from nature over the generations. This must mean that the risk of developing a homosexual child yields some benefit if it is not developed. Furthermore, civilization has been violently surpressing homosexuality for thousands of years, so that the "developed" homosexual person has a family including children.
My only logical conclusion would be that a homosexual father would not cheat on his or her wife, thus keeping the family stable. Woah. Maybe I'm onto something here. I think I just gave myself possible evidence of the advantage for having homosexuality.
However with our current culture of accepting homosexuality, I can only conclude that it will eventually be weeded of nature, since these predispositions will eventually stop being passed on.
Of course all of this is simply based on the assumption that homosexuality paralells the case of stuttering.
Now let's say that all of what I just said is true. Let's also say that God does exist and that God could have intentionally put predispositions of homosexuality in the gene pool of mankind, however at the same time condemning any such acts. This would mean that under the society we used to live under, there would be an advantage to having surpressed homosexuality in the species of mankind, which would mean that God gave us a benefit, however it's only an advantage when it's surpressed that you will be able to pass on those genes.
There are also many cliches that go along with gay men. Such as good taste in fashion. Perhaps these genetic tendencies for homosexuality are coupled with genes of good taste in fashion, that the genes are one in the same. This means that there could be numerous genetic advantages that are linked to tendencies for developing homosexuality.
I hate to ruin this for Asmodean and Svarog, but I think you are both partially right.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
pitsu
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2004 11:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There are also many cliches that go along with gay men. Such as good taste in fashion. Perhaps these genetic tendencies for homosexuality are coupled with genes of good taste in fashion, that the genes are one in the same.
Nice post RSF!
The fluctuations in hearth rate, sexual behavious and eye keenness to fasion among populations is output of a very complex system. The back and forthregulation of body functions makes everything more or less depending on everything at higher level than genes. Therefore, causes for fasion/sexuality correlation may be genetical but do not have to.
One more thing to remind: One cannot choose which smell or clothing feels erotic or when it gets hard. It can be trained to some extent, but nothing that is controlled by so called autonomic nervous system can be entirely taken over by "own mind". It is like- oops, he died, because he forgot to breathe! Hence I would say even if homosexuality is not genetic, it is not a result of your own will. Leaving beside wannabes and forced ones, of course.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
