Being Gay isnt natural

Originally posted by Haydn_17
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

Sorry Oz, we don't tend to get educated about Homosexuality in school, im not sure what school you went to

Your still missing the whole point, still hiding behind calling people idiots and stupid.

Having red hair is natural, having black skin is natural, it's all due to genes and evolution, bringing up religion is just stupid

As i said Red Hair, and Black skin, Genetics.

Now are you going to tell me all about the "Hoax" Gay gene?

Whether being homosexual is a choice or a natural trait is hazy and debatable. But assuming that being gay is a choice, do you also believe that being heterosexual is also a choice? Why or why not?

reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne


Hair colour is a natural physical attribute, while your example of a child with a different hair colour in a family who all have brown hair for example is a suitable analogy of defining the concept of abnormality it does not apply to a persons sexuality.

Now you are the one arguing semantics.

It's normal for a person to be attracted to the opposite sex, if they do not then they are abnormal...

reply to post by SassyCat

SassyCat,

Nobody brought up the duck yet?? (Can't deprive you guys of this one......)

Ducks behave pretty badly, it seems. It is not so much that up to one in 10 of mallard couples are homosexual - no one would raise an eyebrow in the liberal Netherlands - but they regularly indulge in "attempted rape flights" when they pursue other ducks with a view to forcible mating.

Necrophilia among ducks ruffles research feathers

Seems like Mother Nature has here own opinion about sexuality and how it should be practiced....

Peace

reply to post by Haydn_17


Haydn, it was directed at someone who was making similar comparisons, based on ridiculous assumptions and self righteousness. Obviously if what he wrote were true, then it would be true for those things as well

And Haydn, maybe you should review this simple article

en.wikipedia.org...

IM sure many biologists would love to see you attempt to debunk their research...thats assuming you have any idea about human biology and genetics

reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne


Oh, and for the record, two brown haired parents can easily have red haired children. Two black haired people cant, and two red headed people cant produce brown haired children. Obviously you have no knowledge of basic human biology, and the role dominant and recessive genes play in determining how kids turn out

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
@Sinter Klaas

A genetic basis for homosexuality would not cause homosexuals to "go extinct". Look up the definition of de novo mutations. They occur in the germline randomly (with different de novo conditions having different rates of mutation), and thus affect children of non-mutation carrying parents. It's a relatively common and very well studied mode of mutation generation, with several genetics disorders using it as their method of transmission,

Yes, a son of mine has such a "de novo mutation."

He has Klinefelter's Syndrome. This syndrome only affects males, and men with it are generally sterile, so they're not going to pass it on. The parents don't pass it on either, as it generally has nothing to do with the parents' genetic makeup. It's just an accidental mutation that affects roughly one in 500 males.

That, said, there's reason to believe homosexuality may inherited from parents, probably as a combination of recessive genes that has not been pinpointed yet. Sickle cell anemia is a deadly recessive trait, yet it does not breed itself out because people carrying a single sickle cell gene gain some protection from malaria.


What some people don't understand about natural selection is that, in a social species, it's not just the individual that needs to survive, it's the group.
Any recessive inherited trait which helps the group survive will help the genes giving rise to this trait survive, even if full expression of the trait prevents the genes being passed on.
- Because the relatives are more likeky to survive and pass the gene on.

reply to post by Whine Flu


Nobody has used the word "Fag", again making things up to make other members look bad for new readers to the thread.

That is enough

Time now to stop with the childish schoolyard insults and Off Topic remarks..

Fair Warning?

OK

Semper

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by Haydn_17

 

animals are homosexual in nature as well so fail for you and your totally skewed views !

Im 100% sure that a penis was not desgined by nature to enter a mans rear.

Originally posted by Haydn_17
reply to post by Whine Flu

 

Nobody has used the word "Fag", again making things up to make other members look bad for new readers to the thread.

Ignore the people resorting to personal attacks and insults, as it will only add fuel to the fire.

But, what I'm curious to know, as I asked before, is under the assumption that homosexuality is a choice, would it also be feasible to assume that heterosexuality is also a choice, and further than that... that sexual attraction in general is a choice?

Originally posted by Haydn_17

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by Haydn_17

 

animals are homosexual in nature as well so fail for you and your totally skewed views !

Im 100% sure that a penis was not desgined by nature to enter a mans rear.

Then why is a males g-spot, found near the prostate gland?

Just curious as to why it would be there

deleted

Originally posted by Haydn_17

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by Haydn_17

 

animals are homosexual in nature as well so fail for you and your totally skewed views !

Im 100% sure that a penis was not desgined by nature to enter a mans rear.

Ahh, but now your are suggesting that the male reproduction organ only has one function!! That's kinda like saying your index finger is only for picking your nose...

It is a multi-purpose tool which can be used for numerous fun activities...!!!!

Peace

reply to post by Haydn_17


'HEEELLLLOOOOO' ... can you hear ... for the urgent attention of Hadn17 ... R.S.V.P - A.S.A.P ?

You've either missed my post amongst the bickering ... or you're still thinking about the reply you'll give ... or my question went over your head and you're choosing to ignore it ... which is it Haydn_17 ... you know that people will only jump to conclusions if you don't answer.

Don't want them to be the wrong conclusions do we ?

And we certainly don't want to prove Dr Freud correct do we ?

Remember ... read carefully ... and think before you reply.

Woody

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
Ignore the people resorting to personal attacks and insults, as it will only add fuel to the fire.

But, what I'm curious to know, as I asked before, is under the assumption that homosexuality is a choice, would it also be feasible to assume that heterosexuality is also a choice, and further than that... that sexual attraction in general is a choice?

No, I'd say that heterosexuality is the biological norm for any human being and that homosexuality I believe is also not a choice.

After speaking to gay men on here all of them have said they didn't choose their sexuality, if this is to be believed then it's possible to be born gay.

I don't agree with being gay, however, the greatest gift god has granted us is freedom of choice. There are consequences in the book, but I forgot the Vatican openly admits that they have left whole books out. I have a copy of the New testament from the aramaic and there are variantions some may be slight, and I am not the best at reading it. But don't remember Jesus saying anything against homosexual. I know in the old testament there is. But the new I don't know. What I'm driving at is if there are peaces left out, and we know translations aren't correct then what do we think that the bible is tampered with? Of course it was.
Freedom of choice(with consequences), and a soul. Not only that but listen to your heart on the matter don't listen to your head. Be careful what you saying here could be opposing regurgitations of inner turmoil. In which case your fear may become you.

Sorry this is so sloppily written I just woke up.