So a Trumpublican who found Jeebus, nice!
Homosexuality is not a sin
- Thread starter BartenderElite
- Start date
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Yes, you do. Homosexuality is a behavior.
No, it didn't. There is no 'gay gene'.
God did not make anyone gay. There is no 'gay gene'.
Homosexuality is a behavior. One chooses whether or not to engage in such behavior.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
libertarians went of the globalist edge of stupid years ago. like dems, and republicans.
trumpism is shiny and new and america first.
god bless donald trump.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
A liberal. They also don't want anyone else to be free to be themselves either. They live their lives in fear, whether that be fear of a virus, fear of others having money that they don't have, others having happiness that they don't have, or whatever other particular fears that enslave them.
Nah, it’s a bunch of racists and bigots who found a voice in Trump, it’s nothing new.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
there's been a 30 year hiatus on reasonable trade policy, due to crony capitalism swallowing up both parties, and instituting retarded levels of globalist zealotry.
thanks for letting your corporatism shine through.
I don't believe there is a "gay gene," in the sense of a single gene that either makes someone gay or not. I think it's more like height, where you have a mix of a number of different genes that interact with various environmental factors to determine your height. Even "identical" twins can have significantly different heights, since genes aren't the whole story.
Yes I was succeeding in supporting my position regarding humans by making statements about wolves and insects.
Yes, I understand this topic makes you extremely emotional, and so you hope by repeating the same things often enough you can make them true. But the science doesn't care about your feelings. Studies have confirmed there is a genetic component to homosexuality.
Many, many studies say otherwise. That's why you have to resort to simply saying you don't accept any source that disagrees with you.
Yes, I'd imagine that would seem like a mantra to you, given how often you must hear it.
Did you imagine I said one was? What, specifically, led you to that false conclusion?
You don't need to. The specific claims within Wikipedia are nearly always footnoted with links to outside sources.
I am supporting my claim, which is consistent with the established science. You are responding with the same naked assertion each time, hoping that somehow that will shelter you from the facts. It isn't working though, is it?
Do you imagine I suggested they were? If so, what led you to that false conclusion, specifically?
Do you imagine I suggested they were? If so, what led you to that false conclusion, specifically?
Depends on the species. For example, in some species, there's matriphagy, where the mother has evolved to die shortly after breeding, with her body then being a source of food for her new offspring, helping them reach an age where they can also breed successfully. In humans it could take the form of something like leaving an estate to children, which confers benefit after the grantor is dead.
Chemically, the gene is identical whether it's in your body or someone else's. If gene Z encodes for individual X helping individual Y breed, and individual Y has that same gene, then gene Z will be more likely to be in that next generation than it would have without coding that behavior, regardless of the fact it was the gene Z copy in individual X's body that resulted in the individual Y passing along a copy of that gene, rather than individual X doing so.
Many of them are.
Yes. It's Biology 101 material.
Yes. I succeeded in supporting my position regarding humans by making statements about ants.
What makes you think that?
Nor does masturbation stop homosexuality, which is the point. The person remains a homosexual throughout that process of breeding.
Nor does artificial insemination stop homosexuality, which is the point. The person remains a homosexual throughout that process of breeding.
It's reproduction whether or not artificial processes were involved. Obviously.
Nor does artificial insemination stop homosexuality, which is the point. The person remains a homosexual throughout that process of breeding.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
homosexuality is a glimmer in the eye.
Praise Jeebus
Not in mine. It must have been a serious one for you. Did you resist it?
Do you feel guilty or ashamed?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
It is not like height either. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a result of genetics.
No, you were failing. Humans are not wolves or insects.
Projection. I've found that whenever someone mentions "the science", they actually aren't speaking about science at all.
Which ones? The one you provided didn't find anything of the sort. The other one I couldn't see due to my ad blocker.
Which ones?
I only reject sources that are non-authoritative, or are otherwise too often misleading, incomplete, or just plain wrong.
It is a mantra (and a fallacy). It is able to be dismissed on sight.
Your argumentation is based upon that particular implication.
Oh boy!! FOOTNOTES!!! Those claims MUST be true NOW...
No, you are just repeating particular claims over and over again, and have not made any mention of any science to support them. You have instead tried to support them via statements about wolves, insects, and ants, but unfortunately none of those things are humans. You have also tried to support your claims via attempts to equate your own genes to your siblings' (or relatives') genes. Neither attempt has worked out for you.
You keep making the same faulty claims, so I keep pointing out precisely what is faulty about them.
Your argumentation is based upon that particular implication.
Your argumentation is based upon that particular implication.
Not about humans, thus irrelevant.
This is not "helping them [your siblings] breed", as your children (of which you don't even have to begin with because you died before having any, per your own argumentation) are not your siblings. You have now completely lost track of your own argumentation. You seem completely incapable of properly identifying and defining things.
Your argumentation is about passing your genes along, not someone else's. You can't pass your genes along if you're dead.
You are not your relatives.
Your genes are not your relatives' genes. It's Logic 101 material.
No, you failed. Humans are not ants.
RQAA. (Repetitive question already addressed)
Artificial insemination is not homosexuality.
As you're now aware, many studies have confirmed that genetics are, in fact, a component of sexuality.
As you recall, I succeeded.
No. If you think back you'll remember that I linked to studies, which you then rejected because, for you, it's not about science.
The ones I provided.
Yet, as you well know, they did.
Here's yet another one for you:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7082777/
More:
https://zenodo.org/record/1231257#.Ymg0oWdKiUl
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-orientation/864518601436C95563EA670C5F380343
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-007-9274-0
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15645181/
You reject sources that demonstrate things you wish weren't true.
You misunderstood. Try rereading. Good luck.
The point, of course, is that if you're worried that the editor of the Wikipedia page may have misstated the point, you can follow the footnote to the original source and read that. In the case of scientific matters, like the functioning of evolution, the footnotes usually lead to more authoritative scientific sources.
Yet, as you remember, I did mention the science that supports them, including links for you to follow and see for yourself. Your response was simply to go back to asserting what you wish were true.
You're well aware that you haven't been able to identify any problem with what I've written, so you just keep repeating "X isn't Y."
It isn't. You misunderstood. Try rereading.
It isn't. You misunderstood. Try rereading.
What makes you imagine that?
I said children, not your children. It could as easily be your siblings' children, who, of course, would carry copies of many of your genes, and thus you'd be helping them to survive into the next generation.
Where you're struggling here is you have a mystical idea of what a gene is, rather than a scientific idea. A gene is just a string of DNA.... a series of G's, C's, A's, and T's. If the gene is GCATGGCATCGGATGGC, it doesn't matter at all whether that gene was replicated from a GCATGGCATCGGATGGC in your gamete, or your brother's, or your cousin's. Any behavior that GCATGGCATCGGATGGC codes for, if it make it more likely that GCATGGCATCGGATGGC is still around in the next generation, and the next, and the next, with be naturally selected for, regardless of whether that behavior is one in the individual that passed down that GCATGGCATCGGATGGC, or some other individual that has that GCATGGCATCGGATGGC and didn't pass it down. There's isn't some magical "this is yours" aspect to that GCATGGCATCGGATGGC. All GCATGGCATCGGATGGC's are identical. So, if a worker ant, beta wolf, or gay human has a GCATGGCATCGGATGGC that codes for behavior that helps others reproduce and those others have that same GCATGGCATCGGATGGC, then that results in that GCATGGCATCGGATGGC staying in the gene pool and continue contributing to the behavior in question.
I definitely have not, but I appreciate you implicitly admitting how much you're struggling to keep up. Just go back and reread it. It's there. You can get up-to-speed with effort.
Again, you're falling into the error of a mystical understanding of what a gene is. That GCATGGCATCGGATGGC is the same whether it's yours, your sibling's, your kid's, or your cousin's. You are helping it pass down to future generations if you help ANY individual breed that has that same GCATGGCATCGGATGGC.
Even after you're dead, you can help your genes pass into future generations, as with that example where some species dies and serve as food for their own children.
What, specifically, made you imagine I was suggesting you were?
As a simple matter of logic, yes, of course they are. Evolution couldn't work if that weren't true, since the moment you were dead "your genes" would all be gone. But the reason evolution works the way it does is that individuals can influence the probability that particular genes they have will be in the next generation and the one after that, etc. It makes no difference, in that perspective, whether those genes, at one point, were copied from genes you provided in a sperm or an egg, or came from some other source. The result is the same.
But you know that's untrue.
REOTATARUSI (Repetitive Emotional Outburst To Attempt To Avoid Recognizing Uncomfortable Scientific Information)
Agreed. As you know, I never suggested otherwise. But, neither does artificial insemination involve giving up homosexuality. So, obviously, homosexuals can breed.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Nope, homosexuality is a behavior.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
So is heterosexuality, Sybil. Get a fucking clue.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
^^^ Sybil the Psycho keeps dodging the tough questions. He's an empty windbag.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
It is not like height either. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a result of genetics.
No, you were failing. Humans are not wolves or insects.
Projection. I've found that whenever someone mentions "the science", they actually aren't speaking about science at all.
Which ones? The one you provided didn't find anything of the sort. The other one I couldn't see due to my ad blocker.
Which ones?
I only reject sources that are non-authoritative, or are otherwise too often misleading, incomplete, or just plain wrong.
It is a mantra (and a fallacy). It is able to be dismissed on sight.
Your argumentation is based upon that particular implication.
Oh boy!! FOOTNOTES!!! Those claims MUST be true NOW...
No, you are just repeating particular claims over and over again, and have not made any mention of any science to support them. You have instead tried to support them via statements about wolves, insects, and ants, but unfortunately none of those things are humans. You have also tried to support your claims via attempts to equate your own genes to your siblings' (or relatives') genes. Neither attempt has worked out for you.
You keep making the same faulty claims, so I keep pointing out precisely what is faulty about them.
Your argumentation is based upon that particular implication.
Your argumentation is based upon that particular implication.
Not about humans, thus irrelevant.
This is not "helping them [your siblings] breed", as your children (of which you don't even have to begin with because you died before having any, per your own argumentation) are not your siblings. You have now completely lost track of your own argumentation. You seem completely incapable of properly identifying and defining things.
Your argumentation is about passing your genes along, not someone else's. You can't pass your genes along if you're dead.
You are not your relatives.
Your genes are not your relatives' genes. It's Logic 101 material.
No, you failed. Humans are not ants.
RQAA. (Repetitive question already addressed)
Artificial insemination is not homosexuality.
Wrong again, Sybil. How long have you been a paranoid schizophrenic? Teens? Twenties? Thirties?
Playing opposites again. That is simply not true. I gave you the latest science.
Into the Night
Verified User
I love it when you prove you're a Sock Puppet Psycho, Sybil.
Sybil isn't here. There is no sock named Sybil either.